Talk:U.S. military tribunal law faces first court challenge

OR Notes

article written primarily from briefs listed in the sources (reproduced below).  — Doldrums(talk) 16:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Patricia A. Bronte, Agnieszka M. Fryszman (Counsel). "Brief of Amici Curiae retired federal jurists in support of petitioners' supplemental brief regarding the Military Commissions Act of 2006" — ScotusBLOG, November 1, 2006
• Stephen H. Oleskey, Wesley Powell, et al. "Supplemental brief of petitioners Boumediene, et al., and Khalid regarding the Military Commissions Act of 2006" — ScotusBLOG, November 1, 2006
• David J. Cynamon et al. "The Guantanamo detainees' supplemental brief addressing the Military Commissions Act of 2006" — National Security Advisors blog at Typepad, November 1, 2006

Suspension Clause

Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the American Civil War. Looking towards the Justice Dept. response by the 13th, I wonder if there are any lessons there. -Edbrown05 07:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

i think the idea is that congress must explicitly suspend habeas, if it wants to, but not in an implied, indirect way. And it can only do it in times of ongoing "crisis", not indefinitely.  — Doldrums(talk) 07:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

and, apparently, only in times of "Rebellion or Invasion".  — Doldrums(talk) 07:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

hearing that...
changing the subject: under the heading Detainee lawyers challenge new law, the first bulleted point seems to me to be a double negative, "The administration contends that detainees or their attorneys are not entitled to classified information relevant to the case, but not in the CSRT's record." I'm confused. -Edbrown05 07:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

it's supposed to mean "The administration contends that detainees or their attorneys are not entitled to classified information that is relevant to the case but not in the CSRT's record." eg. detainee has a beautifully-shot video of his coerced testimony and medical reports describing the lack of his fingernails. the CSRT doesn't admit the evidence (they don't have to). so when the DC court reviews the CSRT's decision, they can't consider the video and medical evidence, even though it's relevant, because it's not in the CSRT record. page 14 of the amicus brief describes this.  — Doldrums(talk) 07:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

ok, having explained the wrong point, let me do the right one. page 11 of the Al Odah brief,beginning with "Third".  — Doldrums(talk) 08:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)