A war-time precedent

From Discourse DB
Revision as of 16:35, July 16, 2007 by Yaron Koren (talk | contribs) (Global replace - 'http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed' to 'http://www3.washingtontimes.com/op-ed')
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an opinion item.

Author(s) The Washington Times editorial board
Source The Washington Times
Date June 30, 2006
URL http://www3.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060629-090418-3461r.htm
Quote
Quotes-start.png "In stark contrast to Ex parte Quirin -- the 1942 decision that upheld the constitutionality of a military tribunal established to try, and ultimately convict, German saboteurs -- the Supreme Court yesterday issued an appalling 5-3 decision that encroaches on the authority of a president during a time of war." Quotes-end.png


Add or change this opinion item's references


This item argues against the position Supreme Court was correct in its ruling on the topic Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.