> 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.
Agreed. I wonder if we can reasonably expect this to be challenged in the courts?
> >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.
Fair enough; but do normal US federal standards apply to what relatives of the detainee do in *other* countries or before an international tribunal?
In other words, I'm trying to sort out how this executive order and the extant law fits in with the efforts to prosecute Pinochet [1], for example, or suits file re: Colombia [2]. In other words, what does this language actually accomplish vis-a-vis how the court of some other country hears cases from its citizens? (I.e., countries that have equivalents of the Alien Tort Claim Act or Torture Victim Protection Act?)
Best, Kendall Clark
[1] http://www.impunity.org/projects.html for example [2] Ecuadorians File U.S. Suit Over Plan Colombia
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0924-03.htm
Class action suit againt a US contractor, DynCorp,
which is, more or less, supplying mercenaries in
Colombia.