Hamdan v. Rumsfeld: The Supreme Court Affirms International Law (Long Read)

Jurist ^ | June 30, 2006 | David Scheffer

[managusta]

Scheffer sums the case neatly

"In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld the justices of the US Supreme Court have demonstrated how fundamental tenets of international law amplify American values and are deeply embedded in American law..."

For those who have not got it yet, this is the opening salvo at replacing the US Constitution by International law.

[ozoneliar]

It is time for Congress to out-legislate the court. Instead of Useless Constitutional amendments *Cough* Flag Burning* Cough* We need to codify into the constitution the Supremacy of US law. Why has nobody done this?

[Prokopton]

David Scheffer:
Past Appointments: senior fellow, U.S. Institute of Peace; senior vice president, U.N. Association of the U.S.A.; senior associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; senior consultant, Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives; international affairs fellow, Council on Foreign Relations.

Typical lefty "one world" bilge.

[Paperdoll]

So the fourth of July will henceforth be a day of mourning for the loss of our independence rather than a celebration of the birth of it. And America rolls over like a submissive dog.

[mrsmith]

There doesn't seem to have been a single error the court missed making.

"The Congress shall have Power ...To define and punish ...Offences against the Law of Nations"

[CobaltBlue]

Article VI of the United States Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Third Geneva Convention is a treaty that the United States ratified, thus, is the law of the land, and not, as your author pretends, "international law". Shame on him, as a lawyer he ought to know better.

[Enchante]

"It was a good day for international law, and a good day for American jurisprudence. When the majority found that “the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in this jurisdiction,” they did so with the Rule of International Law foremost in their deliberations."

Yes, a "good day" for socialist weasels who work to make the USA subservient to their nonsense. NO, not a good day at all for American jurisprudence..... this decision merely exposes the gross moral and intellectual decrepitude of the "international human rights" leftists who wish to treat Al Qaeda as though it were a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, even though it violates all of the criteria and norms there and is NOT in fact such a signatory..... the SCOTUS, by treating Al Qaeda as though it is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, has forcibly created a "treaty obligation" that the Executive and the US Senate never approved and never would have approved (except maybe during the weasel years of the Carter administration).

[khnyny]

I just got the following book, but haven't had a chance to read it yet. "Disrobed: The New Battle Plan to Break the Left's Stranglehold on the Courts", by Mark W. Smith.

[Jacquerie]

We need to codify into the constitution the Supremacy of US law. Why has nobody done this?

It has not been done because:

1) Only recently have the blackrobes illegally referred to UN law.

2) Why bother? Our philosopher-kings swore to uphold the US Constitution. They regularly ignore their oath when it conflicts with their oh so enlightened, progressive feelings.

3) The senate rats would require 60 votes for such a law. They love the thuggish turd world UN and would never allow such a law to pass.

[sd-joe]

Is it time to drop out of the Geneva Conventions? The people that we fight never live up to it anyway. It is just another weapon to be used against us.

The enemy captures an American, and then beheads him. We capture one of their guys, and spend millions of dollars fighting over how nice we have to be to him.

This is just nuts. We just are not likely to go to war with any of the countries that have signed the convention (and that would live up to it even if they had signed it). So what is the point.

Drop out of the Geneva Conventions. So the world would complain. They are complaining all the time anyway.

[jude24]

For those who have not got it yet, this is the opening salvo at replacing the US Constitution by International law.

Wrong. We signed the treaty; we're bound by it.

[mrsmith]

"in a remarkable foray into customary international law, the plurality of four linked the Common Article 3 judicial guarantees to the protections described in Article 75 of the 1977 Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. "

From the Ruling: "provisions of Commission Order No. 1 dispense with the princi-ples, articulated in Article 75 and indisputably part of the customary international law,"

'Article 75 of of the 1977 Protocol 1' was rejected by the United States.

The court imposed it upon us anyway.

No treaty, no ratification.

[jude24]

Ratification is irrelevant. If Nazi Germany was bound by unwritten laws of war, than so are we. We helped engineer the Nuremberg trials; we can't now claim to be immune from its requirements.

[hershey]

Yes indeedy. UN and the World Court, the EU meddling in American law. Enough to make you throw up.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Notice that this ruling - of an UNSIGNED Treaty (since the terrorists DIDN'T (couldn't) sign the Geneva Convention because they have no government nor any state to declare war against) - is the REQUIRED LEGAL STATUS for Hillary/Ginsburg/Gore to enforce the Kyoto Treaty WITHOUT US consent.

[Robert A Cook PE]

See my comment about Kyoto in nbr 15.

[mrsmith]

"bound by unwritten laws of war "

The Congress shall have Power ...To define and punish ...Offences against the Law of Nations"

The court agreed with you that the Constitution means nothing.

[mrsmith]

Yes, eventually they would impose Kyoto, or anything else, upon us.

I think rulings like this are a last desperate effort of a dying political regime however. It's worrisome that these death spasms are inflicted in the area of national security.

But the court won't continue to invite such disrepute upon itself. One more appointment and it's character will change dramatically.

[managusta]

All titles of treaties and US laws are followed by four digits which allude to its date of enforcement. The Geneva Convention has the four digits 1949 and the Nuremberg trials have the four digits 1945.

Hint :- subtract the lower from the higher, then refer back to your post.

[Congressman Billybob]

This is an incompetent legal analysis of this case. For an accurate analysis, see my article published on Free Republic, the day the Hamdan case was handed down. It was also published on ChronWatch.com and was quoted at length and with favor on Rush Limbaugh on Friday.

This lawyer is not saying what this decision actually DID. He is saying what he WANTED the decision to do. Thank God, he is dead wrong, and I hope Congress will quickly use the one door that the Court left open to straighten out this Court-created mess.

In the meantime, root for "Justices" Stevens and/or Ginsburg to resign for health reasons and be replaced by President Bush by the likes of Justices Roberts and Alito. There is NO EXCUSE for legal garbage like this case from a Court whose members are sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Five of them stand in violation of their oaths of office, in this decision.

P.S. Interested in a Freeper in Congress? Keep in touch with me.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article: "The Gitmo Prisoner's Case: What the Supreme Court Really Did, and How the Press Blew the Story"