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 : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (3031)	10/17/2006 2:21:38 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

No the answer is that the supreme court does make the argument, and I quote when they made it. I'll quote it again without all the context so that you can recognize it easier, you can always go back if you want the context. "The D. C. Circuit ruled Common Article 3 inapplicable to Hamdan because the conflict with al Qaeda is international in scope and thus not a "conflict not of an international character. " That reasoning is erroneous." The USSC is defining a conflict of international character to be a conflict between nations. Since Al Qaeda is not a nation the Supreme Court says that the conflict against Al Qaeda is not of international character. The part you quoted doesn't refute my assertion it supports it.