Carol Platt Liebau: Hamden Analysis

Friday, June 30, 2006

Hamden Analysis

Perhaps the best and most sophisticated comes from Ronald Cass over at Real Clear Politics.

Professor Cass picks up on the under-mentioned outrage of the Court assuming jurisdiction over the case even in the face of a clear congressional prohibition, and -- where I've focused below on the misinterpretation of Article 3 -- he notes that the Justices used and applied it in an absolutely unprecedented and pernicious way.

It's a must-read.

7 Comments:

Blogger Mr. Twister said...

And why was Hamdan necessary? Weren't the military tribunals working to protect the innocent?

"The US government routinely failed to give detainees at Guantanamo Bay access to witnesses who might have helped them prove their assertions of innocence, saying it could not locate the vast majority of the witnesses the terror suspects requested at special military hearings.

"But within a three-day span, a Globe reporter was able to locate three of those witnesses in the case of one detainee. The Globe found two of them in Afghanistan, and located a third in Washington, D.C., where he is teaching at the National Defense University."


You can read the full article here, and a similar article can be found here.

9:59 AM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

Robert Jackson’s contribution to international human rights is found also in his endorsement of the principles of universal jurisdiction. As Jackson said in his opening statement at Nuremberg on November 21, 1946, “the complaining party at your bar today is civilization” and he added that as we pass a poison chalice to the lips of these defendants we pass it to our lips as well.

The Nuremberg Court (IMT) applied the concept of universal jurisdiction when it said that the nations who were plaintiffs at Nuremberg were doing collectively what each one of them could have done individually. In essence what Jackson was saying was that some crimes which were dealt with at Nuremberg were so terrible (i.e. crimes against humanity) that they could be dealt with by any court taking jurisdiction because they were crimes against all humanity – literally and collectively.

10:44 AM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...

Nonetheless, the SCOTUS has no jurisdiction, so George should ignore them. And twisted, is 3 a vast majority?

10:57 PM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

They didn't have jurisdiction over the 2000 presidential election either.

4:52 PM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Marshall Art asks, "And twisted, is 3 a vast majority?"

What in the world are you talking about, MA?

10:06 PM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

The Real Story is that SCOTUS recognizes the detainees under article 3 of Geneva Conventions. Now Bush can't hide the interrogation techinques that amount to torture in military hearings. So Bush will have to either detain indefinitely or get Congress to pass new laws to hold military hearings but, that may be difficult because SCOTUS could find what Congress does as unconstitutional.

Right now Bush is looking at very good chance of being found out to be a war criminal. This is likely why we had such a circus of the stars last week over financial spying. Just to divert attension from the real news.

To sum things up. Bush is incompetent and the worst president in US history. Only 28% approve of the direction the US is on.

7:47 AM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...

twisty,

you quote mentioned a vast majority of witnesses not located and refuted it with three the Globe found. How does 3 prove that the vast majority couldn't be found? Does 3 constitute a vast majority? Or did the Globe merely scrape up three? Why only three? Could they not find more? How do you know they didn't seek more and could only find three? Does this spell it out for you? Do you enjoy jumping on insignificant points and pretending they don't make sense? Stop YOUR pretending. It's plain your only concern is the removal of Bush. What he does doesn't matter. What your moonbat brothers can use to accomplish it is all you care about. If farting out loud at a press conference would do it, you'd oust him for that.

12:41 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google