Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Monday, April 02, 2007

GTMO: Has US Government Violated Lease Agreement With Cuba?

Ref America decides it's not responsible for violations of the laws of war or Geneva Conventions. The Supreme Court erred in refusing to strike down the illegal Military Commissions Act which unlawfully denies prisoners of war all their Geneva Convention rights to challenge their detentions.

Time to put the Cuban government on notice: Are they going to enforce the Geneva conventions and revoke the lease agreement with the US; or is the Cuban government going to be complicit with war crimes committed on Cuban soil?

* * *

The terms of the lease are clear, which the US government pretends does not exist.

“While on the one hand the United States recognizes the continuance of the ultimate sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba over the above described areas of land and water, on the other hand the Republic of Cuba consents that during the period of the occupation by the United States of said areas under the terms of this agreement the United States shall exercise complete jurisdiction and control over and within said areas.”

The Congress is consistent with this lease language. The US Congress made rules that permitted the prisoners of war to have their status reviewed at a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, the Congress intended for them to have US laws apply. The error is for the Supreme Court to accept the government position that violations of this lease agreement -- not enforcing Geneva -- is permissible.

As with the Iran-Contra affair, the government has selected portions of the law it likes, and convinced others that the oversights are acceptable. They are war crimes. The issue isn't whether the Prisoners of war can or cannot review their detention -- they can, as required under Geneva; but whether the Congress can legally deny them rights and privileges afforded to similarly situated prisoners in the Untied States. Congress cannot. The Supreme Court erred in refusing to strike down the illegal provisions of the Military Commissions Act, but contradicted itself by affirming the Congressional role in making illegal rules; then reversed itself a second time by say the laws do not apply. Yes, your head is spinning because the Supreme Court Justices fail to comprehend the tangled web of non-sense they've woven.

Notice the Congress does allow the prisoners of war the right to ask the US Court of Appeals things, confirming the prisoners of war are subject to US laws. It can hardly be said that the prisoners of war -- who have not been charged, and are innocent civilians illegally detained -- have been given timely access to the courts.

That the Congress has created a long, procedural maze is hardly justice, but punishment: The prisoners of war are still being detained and abused in violation of the Geneva Conventions. The delays are a subsequent Geneva violation. No American soldier similarly confined would be deprived of a hearing for this long; Geneva requires prisoners of war to be procedurally treated as similarly situated military personnel.

Once the Supreme Court confirmed that the US Congress did pass rules that -- rightly or wrongly -- stripped some rights from the prisoners of war, the high court in effect trumped the Appeals court ruling that the prisoners of war had "No rights." Contrary to the President's position, the issue is not whether the US Constitution does or does no apply -- it does -- but whether the Geneva Conventions shall or shall not be enforced against the United States. The Supremes in Hamdan ruled that it does. All legislation depriving prisoners of war of rights -- afforded to similarly situated US military personnel are protected under Geneva -- is illegal The issue does not turn on whether the Court agrees or does not agree whether the Constitution applies to detainees; but the opposite, whether the Supremes confirm that the Conventions apply to the detaining power: The United States. It does.

If the President blocks legislation Congress may pass to enforce Geneva that is subsequent evidence that his DoJ, DOD, and White House counsel have illegally assented to Geneva violations. This is additional evidence for war crimes prosecutions. It is hardly good news when the US judicial system has ratified violations of Geneva; or endorsed illegal Congressional acts which deprive all prisoners of war their full Geneva protections. Arguably, legal counsel suggesting that this is good news are violating Article 82 of the Conventions which require the opposite: Geneva's full enforcement.

Contrary to the claims of some alleged rebels working for the White House, the courts are not the only form to resolve these disputes. The Military has no power to refuse to enforce Geneva, but it has under the 5100.77 Laws of War program a duty to not obey illegal Acts of Congress which compel violations of the laws of war. Military decision making should be second guessed when it is illegal; or those decisions put into effect unlawful programs and procedures which violation the laws of war. Staff counsel assigned to the President legal team could be prosecuted for supporting these illegal polices. Any claim that the Supreme Court ruling is a victory is non-sense.

* * *

It can hardly be said that letting a US-run facility under -- their words -- US "jurisdiction" -- spiral into Geneva violations and war crimes is anything but recklessness. Jurisdiction means US courts have control over all legal matters. The US government cannot claim it can enforce a lease; but then refuse to enforce the laws of war.

The Justice argue the prisoners are not subject to US laws because they are outside United States soil. This is irrelevant. Geneva applies universally to the detaining power.

* * *

The ruling is a setback for this President, the Congress, and the Supreme Court. It solidifies in the minds of foreign fighters that the US claim of "superiority" is based on non-sense. The world sees the absurdity of the "most qualified" legal experts: They inconsistently apply logic. That does not inspire confidence in the American government; nor sends a message that the Americans can offer an improvement.

Habeas is not protected by the Constitution, but by the Geneva Conventions. Habeas, as it relates to the Geneva Conventions and US Constitution, is a legal requirement on all Government officials to lawfully protect, unless there has been an insurrection or invasion. These conditions do not apply. The duties of US government officials under Geneva mean ensuring that the rule of law prevails, even against prisoner of war. The Supremes have incorrectly pretended their oath to the US Constitution does not include the Article 82 requirement to enforce Geneva in re Habeas for prisoners of war.

* * *

There are inconsistencies in whether US law does or does not apply. If the prisoners of war have "no right" to have their case heard, the Supreme Court cannot explain how US laws do apply to strip them of their rights.

Using the Supreme Court's absurd reasoning -- that the US laws do not apply to the prisoners of war in Guantanamo -- the Supremes cannot explain how the Congress illegally denied them any rights with the unconstitutional military commissions Act. If the Supremes are ignoring the lease agreement terms with Cube which specifically say that the US shall exercise jurisdiction, then there is no basis for the Court to have recognized any Congressional act which deprived the prisoners of war of any protection.

Arguing that they had or had not tried "all available remedies" means they do have rights to exhaust remedies, clearly confirming they do have legal standing, hardly good news for the Bush Administration. Prisoners of war who have been released have reported, in light of the DOJ Staff rules, that they have been abused in violation of Geneva. If the US government were treating prisoners of war lawfully, there would be no gag order on the prisoners of war once they returned to civilian status as is the case with the Australian. He is gagged to suppress evidence the Australian government prime minister has not forcefully opposed the US government's Geneva violations. Arguably he's complicit with American war crimes.

* * *

Unilateral Default By United States

The lease arraignment includes provisions that the US shall exercise jurisdiction in exchange for the US continued occupation. As long as the US government refuses to exercise jurisdiction -- and violate the Geneva conventions -- the US cannot argue that the terms of the lease have been met.

The US Supreme Court, Congress, and illegal war crimes at Guantanamo are in effect evidence that the US has unilaterally revoked the lease agreement with the Cubans.

* * *

Illegitimate US Government: Misconduct, Agreement To Exercise Jurisdiction, But Refusal To Comply With Geneva

The US Government would have the world think that nobody has control, and nothing can be done about war crimes committed against Prisoners of War.

Time to ask the Cuban government whether they are concerned about war crimes committed on their soil. If they are, illegal activity and Geneva violations could be the basis for the Cubans to revoke the treaty with the US.

Properly may not be leased when the intent of that property-use is to facilitate illegal activity. Arguably, the US lease arrangement with Cuba is no longer enforceable; and the Guantanamo land reverts to Cuban control.

The question is whether Cuba wants to enforce the laws of war; or cooperate with the US government in ignoring the Geneva Conventions.

How ironic, this many years after Cuba and the Russians stood up to the US, the Cubans are complicit with American war crimes.

Someone has to be responsible for what is happening. Time to put pressure on the Cuban government to revoke the Guantanamo lease with the US government.

The only way the US can oppose the Cuban effort to revoke the treaty is if it asserts legal foundations and principles inconsistent with arguments before the US Supreme Court.

The US government can hardly be called competent when, despite clear language that is responsible for jurisdiction of land and facilities under lease arrangement, it spends this many years pretending otherwise.

The US will not, as required, exercise jurisdiction over the facilities, lands, and government affairs on Guantanamo. The US government is arguably illegitimate when it refuses to enforce the laws of war which universally apply to all prisoners.

The burden is on the US to show that its government operations are constituent with the Geneva requirements. Hamdan shows the US is willing to ignore the laws of war.

Today's ruling shows the Supreme Court is willing to endorse the Congress' decision to ratify war crimes. This is illegal: Congress has no power to revoke the Geneva Conventions.

* * *

Reciprocity and Retaliation Against US Government Officials

Geneva permits foreign fighters to engage in like abuses against offending nations. The US claims it has jurisdiction over the Guantanamo, but refuses to enforce the Geneva Conventions.

Similarly, foreign fighters may do the same. All US personnel, Members of Congress, and any other person accused -- and detailed without trial -- may be lawfully and similarly detailed and abused.

America's government has well argued that the Geneva Conventions do not have to be enforced on lands under US jurisdiction. Then no other nation need enforce the Geneva Conventions on lands under their jurisdiction.

The US government has sent a clear signal: It has no legal foundation to prevent open hunting season on all US government officials, military personnel, civilian contractors, and corporate military contractors worldwide. All foreign fighters, under the Geneva conventions, are permitted to engage in like retaliation against all US facilities, personnel, and property worldwide.

The correct approach would have been to enforce the laws of war. This reckless Supreme Court has sent a green light to the world: "Please engage in like abuse against US government officials worldwide. We refuse to enforce the Geneva Conventions. There is nothing that will stop you from engaging in like retaliation."

Sadly, the Supreme Court has said that any American civilian -- simply accused of being a war criminal -- can be illegally abused, detained, and has no prospect of release.

The US government has no basis to whine if foreign fighters expand their action and accuse random people of being unlawful combatants.

In effect, the US government, by assenting to these foreseeable retaliatory acts against Americans, has sent a clear signal: It is incapable of ensuring American personnel, civilians, and facilities are defended. That is the definition of a powerless government which refuses to honor its basic agreement with We the People: The guarantee to be free from abuse of power; and that the laws of war, as they relate to our security, are fully enforced.

The United States government cannot claim it is performing its basic legal requirements. It has abdicated it's fundamental requirement as a government: That of defending the American public. Today's ruling shows the American government is worthless, incompetent, and incapable of governing.

We the People need to resolve this issue. Please discuss with your friends what needs to be lawfully done to compel the US government to ensure there is an enforcement mechanism for the laws of war. Without an enforcement mechanism, the States have been denied the basis guarantee in the US Constitution.

The issue isn't what the prisoner’s rights are under the Geneva Conventions; but what guarantees this US government have denied to the States: The guarantee that there be an enforcement mechanism for the laws of war; and appropriate action to ensure that Americans are not needlessly retaliated against under Geneva.

This US government assents to American civilians being detained, charged, and held without trial worldwide. This US government has exhausted its usefulness. It needs to be lawfully replaced with one that honors its commitments to We the People. We have been deprived of our lawful right and guarantee that we enjoy an enforcement mechanism.

The agreement was to enforce the laws of war. Geneva is a treaty requirement. Prisoners of war, if denied rights by the US under lands the US says are under US jurisdiction, can be universally denied the same rights.

These are not issues isolated to military personnel. Civilian contractors, accused civilians, and US government officials could be detained under these principles of retaliation. How many American citizens may be denied the same rights abroad?

D0 we want to find out the hard way; or do We the People need to send a wake up call to the US government: You are no longer given the power to assent to war crimes; and shall be prosecuted for failing to enforce the Geneva Conventions; and for failing to prevent foreseeable attacks on American civilians, contractors, and US government officials.

There are lawful consequences for recklessness. Yes, the Justices of the Supreme Court can be prosecuted for failing to enforce the Geneva Conventions, especially when the terms of the lease agreement assume the US exercises jurisdiction.

War crimes prosecutors have a legal foundation to issue indictments against the United States Supreme Court, President of the United States, and Members of Congress. Until then, under Geneva, foreign fighters have been delegated the power and authority to engage in like abuses against Americans worldwide.

The intent of Geneva is to create incentives to comply with the laws of war. Where one government refuses to enforce Geneva in the court room, foreign fighters are permitted to engage in like retaliation on the battlefield.

The US Supreme Court has, through this action, sent a clear signal: It assent to the United States citizens, personnel, and things being the object of worldwide attacks. The US Supreme Court has assented to a world war to enforce on the battlefield the Geneva Conventions against the US government.

Stupid people declare war on themselves; reckless government's create a mess then blame others. Japan and Germany during WWII used the world's reaction to its illegal warfare as an unlawful basis to expand their wars of aggression.

The US appears to have done the same. In giving a green light to the world to expand Geneva violations worldwide against US interests, the lazy buffoons in Congress appear eager to use that lawful opposition as the basis to claim Americans are victims.

No, this Congress, President, DOJ Staff counsel, and White House legal community with the US Supreme Court has refused to enforce Geneva. Americans are not victims. They are war criminals.

Law and order has collapsed in America. The world's military powers may lawfully organize themselves to defend themselves, intervene, and restore order in the District of Columbia. All Presidential orders to prevent a restoration of order are illegal. The President cannot credibly argue he is "defending" Americans when he takes action that exposes Americans to Geneva violations.

War crimes are not endorsed when civilian population and legal community vote to ratify them. The world's foreign fighters have a say. There is nothing this Congress, Supreme Court, or President can do to stop the world from organizing to enforce the Geneva Conventions against the US government.