> >>>>> "justin>Did anyone catch this absurd bit from Bush's military
>tribunals order?
>(See the full order at http://monkeyfist.com/articles/793)
>
>Sec. 7. Relationship to Other Law and Forums.
>...
>(b) With respect to any individual subject to this order --
>
>(1) military tribunals shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect
> to offenses by the individual; and
>
>(2) the individual shall not be privileged to seek any remedy or
> maintain any proceeding, directly or indirectly, or to have any
> such remedy or proceeding sought on the individual's behalf, in
>
> (i) any court of the United States, or any State thereof, (ii)
> any court of any foreign nation, or (iii) any international
> tribunal.
>
>I.e., 7(b)(2)(ii) & (iii) is *amazingly* absurd, on its face.
>
>It implies, near as I can tell, that the Administration believes an
>executive order can do legally accomplish the following:
>
>1. prevent a non-citizen from suing the gov't before any US court (ok,
> that's probably possible, more or less)
>
But maybe not be executive order. It's probablya violation of seperation of powers for the executive to decre what is the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Congress can do it, but the lower federal courts are creatures of Congress by the text of the Constitution.
>2. prevent a non-citizen from suing the gov't in *any* other
> countrie's court (hello? only if the non-citizen is dead or
> detained incommunicado, it seems, but even then if the person has
> legal representation before another court...)
Well, this is a way of saying, see if you can make us. As Jackson said when the SCt enjoied the deporattion of the Seminole, Mr Chief Justice marshall has made his decree, now let him enforce it.
>
>3. prevent a non-citizen from suing the gov't in *any* "international
> tribunal"
>
>4. prevent anyone else from suing on the non-citizen's behalf,
> including presumably US citizens and citizens of other countries,
> either in any US court, the court of any other country, or any
> international tribunal
>
>(2), (3), and (4) strike me as completely insane... (4) especially is
>laughable; because Bush says so Amnesty International cannot bring
>suit before any international tribunal? Does that include WCJ?
Under normal US federal standards, only the defendant himself would have standing to sue. His family is not legally injured by his detention, and cannot sue on his behalf in any case. Neither acn AMnesty. This was settled by Lujan v. defenders of Wildlife.
>
>I actually read this section not as legitimate legal language but as a
>political threat couched in legal language.
>
>I'd love to hear from lawyers on this list about 7(b)(2)(ii) & (iii).
What do you call a 900 pound gorilla with a machine gun? "Sir." (Max would call him cutie-face.)
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp