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...
- A failure in generalship For the second time in a generation, the United States...
- Peters’ “Blood borders” map On Sept. 29, veteran foreign-affairs reporter Robin Wri...
- 12 new principles of warfare Now that dramatic improvements in weaponry, communicat...
- “Fiasco” By the winter of 2003-04, the Marine Corps was ordered...
- Hybrid vs. compound war Over the past two years, the hybrid threat construct h...
Recent Comments