Homework question: If the Mil. Commission Act of 2006

[woodsprite]

is challenged and found unconstitutional, will it be withdrawn from law? My daughter is trying to write a persuasive piece on this.

[havocmom]

1. Didn't we hear that part of the law was that it was illegal to challenge the law?

bush-world: making insanity the rule of law

[eallen]

2. The way most bills are written, only the parts found unconstitutional.

The courts don't broadly overturn an entire bill just because some part of it is unconstitutional. They try to overrule narrowly.

[Eric J in MN]

5. The MCA has a severability clause,

...so if part is found unconstitutional, the rest will still be law.

[dflprincess]

3. If I remember my Con Law (undergrad, not law school)

lessons correctly, the answer is yes. If a law is found to be unconstitutional it is no longer be the law. It's also possible that this will be challenged piece by piece and parts of it may be declared unconstitutional and other parts allowed to stand.

[Metta]

4. Provision that exempts war criminals from prosecution tucked in there.

That should be the first thing debated and removed, the bastards. They should all be in jail.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/112406F.shtml

[woodsprite]

6. Interesting thing I just found in the ICRC docs about

prosecuting war criminals. I "knew" this before, but never had really read the true ICRC language in their 44 page brochure.

"Generally speaking, a member's criminal laws apply only to crimes committed in it's territory or by it's own nationals. International Humanitarian Law goes further in that it requires states to seek out and punish any person who has committed a grave breech, irrespective of his nationality or the place where the offense was committed. The principal of universal jurisdiction is essential to guarantee that grave breeches are effectively repressed.

Such prosecutions may be brought either by the national courts of the different States or by an internation authority. In this connection, the International Criminal Tribunals for the form Yugoslavia and Rwanda were set up by the UN Security Council in 1993 and 1994, respectively, to try those accused of war crimes committed during the conflicts in those countries."

Didn't know that John Bolton would be doing a cameo appearance in her persuasive piece. I told her I believed that meant that Putin and Blair, or whoever, have the ability, the right, and especially the duty, to bring the cowboy up on war crime charges and to try them.

According to their docs, it seems there is only one war crime that *HASN'T* been committed: Making inproper use of the distinctive red cross or red crescent emblem or other protective sign. (And even that may be questionable)

All the rest seem to be already broken multiple times:

1) Willful killing of a protected person (wounded, combatant, sick, prisoner of war, civilian)
2) Torture or inhumane treatment of a protected person
3) Willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to the body or health of a protected person
4) Attacking the civilian population
5) Unlawful deportation or transfer
6) Using prohibited weapons or methods of warfare
7) Killing or wounding perfiduosly individuals belonging to a hostile nation or army
8) Pillaging of public or private property

My daughter always has interesting assignments. Next month, it's re-arguing a Supreme Court Case. :)