Talk:Ex parte Quirin
| WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases | (Rated B-class, High-importance) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
| WikiProject Law | (Rated B-class) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
