The President Is Not Bound By The Geneva Convention Summary

Another very notable role of the President also outlined in Article II. Section 2. of the Constitution and reads, “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court(http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html). It essentially gives the President power to make treaties with foreign nations however, two-thirds of Congress must be in agreement with the decision. Although the President, or the Executive Branch can be interpreted as the most authoritative arm of government, its powers are still limited and restricted by the process of checks and balances. Each branch of government has some governance over the other two divisions. For instance, just as it is outlined above, the President can nominate Ambassadors and Judges of the Supreme Court but the decision must be upheld by Congress. In other words, under the "Advice and Consent clause the appointed member must be sworn in by the Senate. Again, this is an example of how the system of checks and balances limits the powers of the President.

Document A: According to Article II of the Constitution, the President has the power to carry out the laws. He officially becomes commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, allowing him/her to have control over them. The President is responsible for making sure the laws are enforced.

The president also has the power Veto laws passed by congress. The president has the power to make political appointment and negotiate treaties with foreign countries, however this power also requires the approval of the senate. The President is responsible for making a for appointing his cabinet and federal judges. The president is capable of calling congress in session and the power to adjourn congress.

The Geneva Convention and its participants keep all prisoners of war on a uniformed playing field, to prevent

On U.S. territory and the government argues that they therefore have neither constitutional rights nor the rights guaranteed under the Geneva Convention, the international treaty governing detention during wartime. Basic principles like due process,

Geneva Convention Articles are expounded on in FM 2-22.3, which was a change from the previous version, FM 34-52, where some of the applicable articles were just introduced. FM 2-22.3 has included an appendix covering all the articles of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions. Although, these references can be found in numerous publications, by inserting them in the manual the authors reemphasize the importance of compliance with the Geneva Conventions and also reinforce the prohibition of torture, something that was not covered in FM 34-52.

Hamdi was unconstitutionally held by the United States Government for over a year. He was deprived of his basic rights as a United States citizen including his right to legal aid and to a fair and speedy trial. For over one year Mr. Hamdi was denied access to a legal aid while he was detained for being an “enemy combatant.” A term that has changed over the years, at the time of Mr. Hamdi’s capture it was, “part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners’ in Afghanistan and who ‘engaged in an armed conflict against the United States there’,” (Katsh 15). The only evidence of Mr. Hamdi committing any acts against the United States or in support of an enemy of the United States is based off the government’s “little more than their ‘say-so’,” (Katsh 16). If the government is going to label someone an “enemy combatant,” and take away their freedoms as a United States citizen, it must be based on more than a

Facts: Yaser Esam Hamdi, an American citizen was detained by the Northern Alliance forces on the battle fields of Afghanistan in late 2001. Hamdi was then consider to be an enemy combatant, in other words a traitor, in which he was held by the Department of Defense. Hamdi’s father then, petition for a federal district court for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his son had no wrong and was unlawfully held. However, the court countered with, “they had the right to detain him due to war time”. In addition, the president, George W. Bush took action and said to use “all and appropriate force” and those designated as “enemy combatant”.

Allegedly, the outsourcing of terror suspects to countries such as Jordan, Egypt, Morocco and Syria, countries that engage in torture, also occurred. In addition, the International Committee of the Red Cross reported on methods of physical and psychological coercion used to extract information from prisoners in Iraq. These methods include beatings with hard objects, slapping, punching, kicking, prolonged exposure to the sun, and parading detainees naked, sometimes with women’s underwear on their heads. In some cases, threats were issued against the detainees’ families (Ramsey 105). Acts such as these are what determined the necessity of the 1984 convention prohibiting torture, and yet the abuse continues.

The torture of captured suspects is contrarian to the values of the American legal system because generally captured suspects are supposed to entitled to due process, according to Amendment V of the United States Constitution: “no person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Guantanamo Bay”. Terrorist which are held captive by the American government are presumed guilty but are not being given a fair chance to seek representation in a court of law or have fall range access to their attorneys once they find themselves in a conflict. In my opinion, terrorists should have the opportunity to have their cases reviewed and be given a fighting chance instead of being held for an indefinite amount of time without due process or trial. The U.S

The war on terror, following the events of 9/11, made people acknowledge a new form of enemy. Terrorisms became the central focus of nations and various actions were taken to ensure that such a horrendous act never transpires again. However, the problems associated with these legal constraints has led to many international law violations. This paper will seek to discuss these legal constraints and its effect on the war on terror. In order to demonstrate this, the principles of distinction, proportionality and military necessity will be examined to understand whether the legal actions of the United States were appropriate and legal. The principles of distinction, proportionality and military necessity are central to jus in bello (also known as “the laws of war”). These three principles are closely interconnected with one another and are necessary to determine whether a war can be perceived as being legitimate.

The war on terror has brought about much facets of democracy. The role of democratic principles plays an important aspect in the way that individuals are treated. There are ongoing debates over the constitutional right of non-citizens and citizens traveling abroad. The supreme court has not suggested that US citizens arrested within the United States be treated any differently because he was suspected of being a terrorist or suspected of such. The process that I chose to discuss is the enemy combatant.

Most violent offenders are not subjected to these techniques. However, it has been reported that the use of these techniques was almost commonplace in the intelligence community following the September 11 attacks. In civil proceedings, the Fifth (federal) and Fourteenth (state) Amendments address the use of these techniques. While torture is not explicitly discussed, the amendments do, among other things, provide protection against self-incrimination to include situations that are inherently coercive. Furthermore, military tribunals are more specific and require less interpretation. Rule 304 of the Manual for Military Commissions (2010) clearly states, “No statement, obtained by the use of torture, or by cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment…shall be admissible in a trial by military commission...” (pp. III-8). With this in mind, if terrorists are exposed to these harsh techniques, any information obtained would not be admissible in court due, not only to the coercive techniques used, but the inherent unreliability of the information obtained. The overarching point is less about the use of harsh interrogation techniques as it is about the effects of immoral or unethical treatment in a democratic justice system. In other words, if we don’t treat terrorists the same, they become harder to successfully prosecute. Timothy McVeigh and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev are

In the United States, one of the major methods in obtaining crucial information has been through the use of Guantanamo Bay. While many have condemned of the torture that is believed to occur there, not only does Guantanamo Bay comply with national and international standards, but it also complies with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (Meese 1) which states

When President Bush declared the War on Terror after the incident of September 11, 2001, he was declaring a new kind of war on a different kind of enemy. The al-Qaeda terrorist group who were responsible for the destruction of World Trade Center is organized differently than any enemy that the U.S. has faced before. Since the terrorists were determined to target large numbers of American civilians, the Bush administration issued a memorandum which declared the Geneva Conventions cannot apply to unconventional combatants such as al-Qaeda, it states “ I accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and determine that none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with al Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere through the world because; among other reasons al Qaeda is not a High Contracting Party to Geneva. (Bush 2002)”