The court has to power to judge by the law but the majority of the power was placed in the hands of Congress where it is divided into the hands of a multitude of people instead of the hands of one executive branch member or into the hands of 9 judicial branch members.

The Judicial branch is really the weakest branch as Congress can do quite a bit to control the excesses of the judicial branch but allows them a fairly free reign. In return for their generosity the federal courts take power from the people and the states and give it to Congress. The Constitution barely enters into the agreement except to be misinterpreted in order to strengthen the federal government.

Politics is a major part of the rulings of the Court. We have a number of Justices that favor international law over the U.S. Constitution.

If I was not so miffed about the above then I might actually agree with the court in this case as only Congress has the power to alter our level of adherence to the treaties.

Frankly I don’t give a care what the unelected Oligarchy of the Supreme Court

Interesting viewpoint. My understanding is that SCOTUS provides a great counterbalance for the President and Congress specifically because of it’s unelected nature. They’re the only branch that can afford to ignore short-term political bickering.

This is because the Congressional power to declare war gives them precedent over any treaty.

The ruling does not disagree with you. They simply said that Force Authorization passed by congress did not offer even the slightest hint as to how detainees should be handled. Thus the president needs to use either an existing standard (either UCMJ or Geneva) or work with congress to pass new legislation.

This also means Congress can alter the Geneva Convention or any other document in whatever way they please.

This is probably nitpicking, but the Geneva Convention exists outside of our jurisdiction, so we can’t unilaterally alter the treaty. I think you meant that we can alter our level of adherence to it.

This is because the Congressional power to declare war gives them precedent over any treaty. This also means Congress can alter the Geneva Convention or any other document in whatever way they please.

I’m not qualified to comment further, but it appears the the Convetions were more forward-thinking than your or I believed.

If we are to look at the “intent” of the treaty then why did a U.S. Court just interpret it outside of that “intent”?

Please provide a citation. I’ll comment further in the morning.

If we are to look at the “intent” of the treaty then why did a U.S. Court just interpret it outside of that “intent”? The intent of the treaty was to protect people who obeyed it. It does not apply to non-signatories. If someone does not follow it, they are no longer protected by it. So, why did a court change that. Now those that do not abide by are still protected by it. Insanity.

Its like the only country it does apply to is the U.S. And therefore it doesn’t do much but tie our hands. So, why are people worried that if we clarify it that it will jeapordize us being protected by it. Heck, those that break everyone of the rules it has, are still protected by it.

Are the Geneva Conventions a “living and breathing document” like many liberal academics ascribe to the US Constitution?

That’s a very good question. I had to stop and think about it for a bit.

Ultimately, my answer would be no. The key distinction is that the Constitution binds one entity (yes, it’s made of states, but the Federal government is very powerful ) while the Geneva Convention is a treaty binding many entities.

A treaty quickly becomes useless if it is subject to much interpretation by individual nations. If the treaty lacks sufficient clarity, the world should sit down and ammend it.

Any methods of interrogation that are modeled after current periods of training that any members of the US Armed Forces may be subjected to shall not be considered cruel treatment, torture, outrages upon personal dignity humiliating or degrading treatment.

Interesting concept, but I don’t see how it could ever work. Both sides would say “They started it first!” and the situation would devolve quickly.

There needs to be a universal standard for wartime behavior. The Geneva Convention was our first attempt at it, but the drafters clearly did not envision the current situation well enough to give clear guidance.

I’m not foolish enough to think it will happen, but the proper way out of this mess it to form a consensus and ammend the treaty itself. In the meantime, we should try to stay true to the intent of the treaty.