SUPREME COURT:
The Court lacked jurisdiction to hear [suspected terrorist SalimAhmed] Hamdan's appeal, but once assuming jurisdiction, it ruled incorrectly that the Geneva Conventions apply to his case. ...

[Justice Antonin] Scalia said that judges inclined toward the "living Constitution" approach think "there really is a brotherhood of the judiciary who indeed believe it is our function, as judges throughout the world, to determine the meaning of human rights. And what the brothers -- and sisters -- in one country say is quite relevant to what the brothers and sisters in another country say. And that's why I think if you are a living constitutionalist, you are almost certainly an international living constitutionalist."

To grasp the magnitude of the arrogance of the Court's majority in extending Geneva protections to Hamdan, you really need to understand that it had no power to decide this case. ...

On Dec. 30, 2005, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), in which it expressly and unambiguously stripped all courts, including the Supreme Court, of jurisdiction to consider habeas corpus petitions of Guantanamo Bay detainees,such as Hamdan.

It is inconceivable that the Court's majority was in doubt about Congress's intent to deprive it of jurisdiction in these cases. ...

Once it usurped jurisdiction of the case, the majority further demonstrated itsdetermination to go the extra mile for Al Qaeda (and thus please its international brethren) by straining to interpret "Common Article 3" of all four Geneva Conventions as applying to Hamdan even though Al Qaeda is not a nation, not a Convention signatory, and the conflict is clearly international in scope.
-- David Limbaugh, humaneventsonline.com, 7/5/06