Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (24714)	7/21/2006 5:59:27 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541429

I read your quote of Hamdi, and skimmed through the decision before my post. Since then I've gone back and read all of OConner's majority opinion. I might go back and read the other opinions in more depth (I just skimmed through them very quickly and didn't even skim through Rasul). From page 30 of the decision it would seem that the decision applies to an American citizen - " I agree that it spells out a requirement for a tribunal (at least for US citizens), but that doesn't mean passing sentence, as Lane3 also pointed out. Reading any number of decisions won't tell me what the convention itself calls for. The decisions might contain arguments that could convince me to change my mind, but so might your posts, or an op ed piece. Supreme Court Justices do not have a monopoly on observation and logic. They only have a monopoly on the type of legal power they wield.