http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/hamdan-ii-first-test-of-tribunal-bill/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:56:34 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/hamdan-ii-first-test-of-tribunal-bill/comment-page-1/#comment-10454 Maude Fri, 29 Sep 2006 13:54:51 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/hamdan-ii-first-test-of-tribunal-bill/#comment-10454 Thanks Lyle for your post, Could the lawyers for Hamdan argue that the new law does not pertain to Hamden because that would be ex post facto? Another issue this laws brings to the table is that once the US breaks with international agreements, other countries can do the same. I was thinking that this could be used against US citizens abroad. Also, when a person signs a contract with the US government to serve in the armed forces, until now, the Geneva Conventions were in effect. Now, that is not so. Would not the US government be in breech of contract with the members of the US armed forces? The Geneva Conventions were a part of the deal for US soldiers in Viet Nam. I don't think that now holds true for the US soldiers on foreign soil. What is to prevent a foreign government from declaring a US soldier an enemy combatant, tossing that soldier into prison, torturing him or her, not charging the soldier with any crime and not allowing the US to do anything about it? Maybe I need a hobby. This law is scary. I do hope that Hamdan begins to challenge it. Maude Thanks Lyle for your post,
Could the lawyers for Hamdan argue that the new law does not pertain to Hamden because that would be ex post facto?
Another issue this laws brings to the table is that once the US breaks with international agreements, other countries can do the same.
I was thinking that this could be used against US citizens abroad.
Also, when a person signs a contract with the US government to serve in the armed forces, until now, the Geneva Conventions were in effect. Now, that is not so. Would not the US government be in breech of contract with the members of the US
armed forces?
The Geneva Conventions were a part of the deal for US soldiers in Viet Nam.
I don’t think that now holds true for the US soldiers on foreign soil.
What is to prevent a foreign government from declaring a US soldier an enemy combatant, tossing that soldier into prison, torturing him or her, not charging the soldier with any crime and not allowing the US to do anything about it?
Maybe I need a hobby. This law is scary.
I do hope that Hamdan begins to challenge it.
Maude

]]> http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/hamdan-ii-first-test-of-tribunal-bill/comment-page-1/#comment-10453 Adamos Fri, 29 Sep 2006 00:24:28 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/hamdan-ii-first-test-of-tribunal-bill/#comment-10453 Could it be that the DC Circuit vacated completely its original decision and remanded the case to the District Court without instructions so that it can proceed through the courts untainted by its first passage, in the hope that the Chief can sit should it come before the Supreme Court again (as seems likely)? Could it be that the DC Circuit vacated completely its original decision and remanded the case to the District Court without instructions so that it can proceed through the courts untainted by its first passage, in the hope that the Chief can sit should it come before the Supreme Court again (as seems likely)?

]]>