For its decision in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case. As correct as the court was to limit executive “emergency” powers as a matter of U.S. law, its introduction of Article 3 of the Geneva Convention into the issue was a huge mistake and reflected a deep misunderstanding of the nature of the conflict. There were a number of leaps of logic in Justice John Paul Stevens’ plurality opinion, but the most egregious was to translate Article 3 as applicable to international terrorism, where the text says plainly that it covers wars “not of an international character” — in other words, internal civil wars. Moreover, to consider that provisions intended to cover non-combatants to Hamdan, who was the driver for Osama bin Laden, would be to regard Gen. George Casey’s driver as a non-combatant. The Congress needs not only to limit the powers of the executive but to constrain policymaking by the judiciary.
Most Popular
Recent Posts
- 1930: In case you missed it August 09 2014
-
Book excerpt: “F.I.R.E.” April 29 2014
-
Two Cheers for the QDR April 06 2014
- 1973: Buy our drones! April 05 2014
-
Afghanistan or Talibanistan? April 02 2014
Popular Posts
Blood borders International borders are never completely just. But t...
Peters’ “Blood borders” map On Sept. 29, veteran foreign-affairs reporter Robin Wri...
Pipeline politics in Syria You can’t understand the conflict without talking about...
12 new principles of warfare Now that dramatic improvements in weaponry, communicat...
From the Archives
Truth, lies and Afghanistan I spent last year in Afghanistan, visiting and talking...
Recent Comments