Talk:Ex parte Quirin

Ex parte Milligan
The 1866 decision (with its own page herein) seems to merit a reference. So does the situation in Gitmo & Iraq. Trekphiler 12:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've added a "See also" for Ex parte Milligan. As for Gitmo & Iraq, they probably should be mentioned in a "Later affects" section or something. I don't have the expertise to write such a section though. Evil Monkey - Hello 22:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Name of Coast Guardsman
This page is in disagreement with Operation Pastorius regarding the name of the Coast Guardsman that first sighted the saboteurs. There, his name is mentioned as "John C. Cullen", whereas here he is named as "Frank Cullen". Can someone clear this up? --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 22:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Geneva conventions aren't part of our law automatically via supremacy clause. It wasn't before and certainly isn't like that post Medellin. Idiots. ~Harvard Law Teaching fellow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.101.6 (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

71.205.101.6 is correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.225.229 (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Relevance of List
Shouldn't this article at least mention In re List? In that ruling the Nuremberg Tribunal held that the defendant, a German general, committed no crime when he tried captured, ununiformed Yugoslav partisans by summary court-martial and had them shot. Solicitr (talk) 12:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Balance in Discussion
There's almost nothing on the decision, but the longest section in the article is about Jackson's, unjoined, concurrent opinion. I object principally because Jackson's concurrence is the opinion of someone who sees the President with far more power, and that's something that is all too popular today. JoshNarins (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Ex parte Quirin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070512175803/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13773997/site/newsweek/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13773997/site/newsweek/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ex parte Quirin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203001757/http://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/content/articles/2013/01/Kent_66_Vand_L_Rev_153.pdf to http://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/content/articles/2013/01/Kent_66_Vand_L_Rev_153.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

2001 OLC Opinion
New editor here, so any comments appreciated. The text included this sentence and comment at line 107: "In the days after the military order on November 13, 2001, to try suspected terrorists, and particularly those detained at Guantanamo Bay, before military commissions, Ex parte Quirin was frequently cited as the legal basis for the order." The most important citation was not in the days after, but actually the week before, in the November 6, 2001 Office of Legal Counsel opinion. I edited to answer the question "by who" but also made the sentence more accurate overall. Checkpoint42 (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The next section says ". . . President Bush's claim relied on a congressional Joint Resolution used as a formal declaration of war (which has no precise legal definition in the United States) under the War Powers Resolution, and two provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the successor to the Articles of War.."
 * It is arguable whether the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force was used as a formal declaration of war. The difference is that a declaration of war legally places the United States in a state of international armed conflict, but an AUMF delegates the decision when and whether to enter armed conflict to the President. It is true the 2011 AUMF cited the War Power Resolution, but this is a bit of an odd reference because the War Powers Resolution has never played a significant role in conflict under the 2001 AUMF. Finally, there is already a wikipedia page on the 2001 AUMF, so it would seem to make more sense to cite that directly. Checkpoint42 (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 2001 AUMF, not 2011 AUMF Checkpoint42 (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also the November 6, 2001 OLC opinion supplies the needed citation. Checkpoint42 (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Status of Geneva Conventions as "municipal law"
The text says that "Since the 1942 Quirin case, the U.S. signed and ratified the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which were thus considered to be a part of U.S. municipal law, in accordance with Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Constitution of the United States (the Supremacy Clause)." It cites Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State, apparently a 1963 "Tokyo District Court" case. This case would have limited precedential value in the United States and does not seem to address the Geneva Conventions in any case. It is certainly true that the Supremacy Clause incorporates treaties into U.S. law, but most treaties are not "self-enforcing" under U.S. law. Under that doctrine, non-self-enforcing treaties do not provide rights or remedies to people unless there is additional implementing legislation. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is the most salient example. So there is actually significant debate over whether the Geneva Conventions are self-enforcing, a point the text skips over. Checkpoint42 (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

February 2002 Bush Memo on Geneva Conventions
I added the February 2022 Bush memo on Geneva Conventions, which seemed to be missing. The double negative "not 'not of an international character'" is intentional, and an artifact of the Bush Memo's reasoning. Also added the 2009 Military Commissions Act treatment of Geneva Conventions, which replaced the 2006 Military Commission Act. Checkpoint42 (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)