Question for high court: In terror war, to hell with int'l law?

[thundley4]

WASHINGTON, Jan. 10 (UPI) -- A powerful federal court, ruling on broad issues, has brushed aside international law and the laws of war, saying only domestic law restricts the president's power to hold an enemy combatant.

Even viewed in isolation, the decision has considerable weight.

But the ruling, which applies nationwide for the moment, comes as Washington whips itself into a security frenzy following the failed bombing Christmas day of an international U.S. flight from the Netherlands to Detroit, prompting warnings from civil rights and Muslim advocates.

The 2-1 ruling was handed down in the case of a Guantanamo detainee seeking release through a constitutional, or habeas, review of his case. But instead of being a paean to the power of the writ of habeas corpus, language in the opinions supporting the ruling may instead serve as a rallying cry for those who say it is time for the president and Congress to face reality and recognize the old rules no longer apply.

U.S. Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote the majority opinion, and a separate concurrent opinion agreeing with the majority document. In that second opinion, in a highly unusual departure from judicial custom, Brown sets out a chilling vision of the stakes and new tactics in the war against terror.

  UPI.com

Not that this means anything , with Lord Zero willing to give terrorists all rights accorded citizens. 

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Milady, Janice Rogers Brown was part of that decision.

 

[DumbAss Tanker]

Milady, Janice Rogers Brown was part of that decision.

 

You may like the result now, but "The international laws of war as a whole have not been implemented domestically by Congress and are therefore not a source of authority for U.S. courts. ..." is a messed-up misstatement of the law here.

In the first place, he wasn't taken 'Domestically,' and in the second, as long as we are talking actual treaties like Geneva/Hague, signed by the Exectutive with the advice and consent of the Senate (As opposed to customary international law), it is a very-settled proposition that they do indeed have the same force and effect in our law as statutory law.

By that token, a clear intention to set them aside or contradict them in a later statute would be a sound legal basis for a domestic action that was contrary to treaty rule, silence or indirect conflict does NOT get you there, though.

The DC Circuit is powerful alright, but it is also second only to the 9th Circuit for screwing the pooch in its decisions through a certain willingness to indulge in politically-based decision-making instead of sticking to purely sound legal analysis.