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

Jurist ^ | June 30, 2006 | David Scheffer

[Congressman Billybob]

You miss two very TINY points in your comment. The Third Protocol of the Geneva Conventions, on which the Court relied, was NEVER RATIFIED by the US Senate, as required by the Constitution. The other error is that the Conventions do NOT cover people who wear no uniforms, are not in military units, to not represent a nation, and hide among (and also deliberately attack) the civilian population.

Other than those tiny errors, your comment is spot on.

John / Billybob

[Congressman Billybob]

You have a clear misunderstanding of the Rule of War. Try reading my article. If you really want to do your homework, read the unanimous Quirin decision in 1942, which explains exactly why the Rule of Law (much older than the US), was incorporated into US law by Congress in 1789.

Or, you can read a history book on the American Revolution, and reflect on the legal authority which General Washington used to try, convict, and then hang Major John Andre, the contact for General Benedict Arnold in the intended betrayal of the garrison at West Point.

The government is obeying the Law of War, here. It is the Court which ignored the Law of War in this decision, primarily by running away from its own unanimous decision in Quirin. You have a lot of reading to do before you will demonstrate an understanding of what you are posting about.

John / Billybob

[jude24]

Quirin was decided before Nuremburg.

There is no way we can honestly hold other countries accountable for unwritten laws of war, and then duck the Geneva Convention's protocols. That would be the epitome of hypocrisy.

You have a lot of reading to do before you will demonstrate an understanding of what you are posting about.

Just because I disagree - and operate from different assumptions - does not mean that I don't understand.

[jude24]

Five of them stand in violation of their oaths of office, in this decision.

Oh, please. Just because they interpret things differently doesn't mean that they are in dereliction of duty. There is a lot of room for legitimate disagreement here.

[Congressman Billybob]

No, there is NOT room for disagreement here. In Hamdan five Justices refused to follow the unanimous decision in . That is not a matter of opinion, it is fact. Also, the majority avoided ALL of its prior cases, including McCardle, which consistently held that a withdrawal of jurisdiction is effective immediately in all pending cases. That is also a fact.

Apparently, you have not read McCardle. In that case, Congress withdrew the right of habeas corpus, late in the Civil War, and as provided in the Constitution. As a result, the Court dismissed that case, which was then pending before it.

Do you dispute the facts I've put on the table? If not, I gather you withdraw your comment that this is a legitimate disagreement.

John / Billybob

[Congressman Billybob]

Posting my post ate the main case citation. The unanimous decision was Quirin, 1942. You need to reread that until you understand that.

John / Billybob

[Congressman Billybob]

My quarrel with your posts is not that we "disagree." It is that you demonstrate an ignorance of the relevant case law, statute law, and treaties. Instead of enlightening the discussion, you are spreading a fog of misunderstanding. There is, unfortunately, even on FR a fair amount of that.

John / Billybob

[jude24]

I most certainly have read McCardle. It was concerned with a statutory review, not Constitutional review. That is governed by US v. Klein, 80 US 128 (1872) which strongly suggests that Congress may not use the Exceptions Clause to cripple the Court's ability of Constitutional review.

[jude24]

There is, unfortunately, even on FR a fair amount of that.

Yeah, spread by the BushBots.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Five (sworn liberal socialists) justices mangled the LAW - as it is written, as it it applies to a terrorist who is NOT a signature to the Geneva Convention, and which we did NOT ratify.

You CANNOT escape or make excuses for lies and false judgments: There is NO argument, only socialist "judges" who write their own law.

Paraphrasing, as Einstein once said, when his theories were attacked by Hitler's Nazi (liberal socialist) scholars, "500 making false statements means nothing. If they could, it would only take one to prove me wrong."

[Sandy]

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

The removal of jurisdiction trumps the treaty though.

[Sandy]

this is the opening salvo at replacing the US Constitution by International law.

Don't sweat it. Justice Stevens will be gone soon. This is just a glitch, soon to be corrected.

[streetpreacher]

The Court right now seems to be made up of 8 activists and one switch hitter.

[streetpreacher]

I was thinking the same thing. Thanks for pointing that out. The author is clearly reaching.

[managusta]

Occasionally we are blinded by our own brilliance. However, often or not our judgement is clouded as a result of deliberate misleading by another party.

First, let's take a peek at the amicus briefing in HAFIQ RASUL, et al.,v.GEORGE W. BUSH, et al.,

INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE

The amici, International Law and Jurisdiction Profes-
sors, include John H. Barton, the George E. Osborne
Professor of Law Emeritus at Stanford University, David
Caron, the C. William Maxeiner Distinguished Professor of
Law at the University of California, Berkeley, Barry E.
Carter, Professor of Law at Georgetown University and
Anne-Marie Slaughter, Dean of the Woodrow Wilson
School at Princeton University.

All are academic international law experts who have devoted significant attention to the jurisdictional aspects of national and international law in areas such as international criminal law, international economic law, and human rights.

Professors Barton and Carter are members of the bar of this Court.

The amici do not seek to comment on the merits of any
claims or defenses. Rather, they wish to raise to this Court
the need to extend judicial review to certain EXTRATERRITORIAL actions by the United States government and the feasibility of doing so consistently with the Constitution and with the demands of international law.

This amici brief lays out the Liberal's agenda. Starting with a casual indifference to the plaintiff and progressing to hampering future Presidents in defending the United States by utilizing international law administered by the current majority of the Supreme Court.

Like many commentators you were watching the right hand while the left was presdigitating. Rasul and Hamdan are not about what the ruling DID (a bone for conservatives to gnaw on) but what the ruling DOES (the meat of the matter).

The DOES is precisely what Schaffer lays out in this article.