UK and European Parliamentarians Oppose Bushist Tribunals For Violating Humanitarian Principles

[BurtWorm]

Following is the amicus brief filed by 375 current and former members of the British and European Parliaments in support of the Hamdi defense team's moves to challenge the very basis of the Bushist military tribunals, which Congress is complicit in trying to slip past the court of world and historical opinion. It won't pass muster, no matter how the American justice system rules. (More about this case is here):

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/parliamentarians-brief-hamdan-7-08.pdf



MEMORANDUM OF LAW ON BEHALF OF
UNITED KINGDOM AND EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARIANS
AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE

The identity of the amici

The amicus group is comprised of 375 United Kingdom and European
Parliamentarians: 264 current or former Members of the Parliament of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and 111 current or former Members of
the European Parliament.1

Amici are drawn from all across Europe, and the group spans the political
spectrum, including senior figures from all major political parties in the United Kingdom.
The group also includes several former judges of the highest court in the United
Kingdom; former Cabinet Ministers, including a Secretary of State for Defense; a former
Attorney-General of the United Kingdom; a former European Commissioner and United
Kingdom ambassador to the United Nations; two former Speakers of the House of
Commons; 9 Bishops and Archbishops of the Church of England; a former Archbishop of
Canterbury; a Vice President of the European Parliament; and a former Vice President of
the European Commission.

The interest of the amici

Amici take no view on whether Petitioner is guilty of acts of terrorism or conduct
in violation of the laws of war. Nor do amici seek to express any view on the legitimacy
of the military action in Afghanistan or Iraq or the politics or tactics of the war on terror
in general, or against al Qaeda in particular. These latter issues are questions on which
amici continue to hold differing individual views.

Amici have nevertheless come together to present arguments in this case in
support of Petitioner since the case was first before this Court in 2004 and throughout the
proceedings in the Court of Appeals and in the Supreme Court of the United States
because, despite their divergent political perspectives, they share a common view: that it
is essential to the international legal order that, even when faced with the threat of
international terrorism, all states comply with the standards set by international
humanitarian law and human rights law. Amici share a concern that the prosecution by
military commission to which Petitioner will imminently be subjected will contravene
these standards.

Amici hope that the views of leading parliamentarians from states with close legal,
historical and political ties to the United States may be of assistance to the Court when it
is weighing Petitioner’s request for a preliminary injunction to stay his military
commission trial pending this Court’s resolution of the merits of his challenges to the
legality of those proceedings. Amici note the long tradition of shared policies, joint legal
progress and mutual learning that have characterized the development of relevant
domestic and international law in the United States and in other democracies governed by
the rule of law. The United States has long been known as a nation “unwilling to witness
or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been
committed.” President Kennedy, Inaugural Address, 20 January 1961, available at
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres56.html. The international legal principles to which
amici wish to draw this Court’s particular attention find eloquent expression in the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, which themselves
reflect principles in the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights. These principles
have in turn influenced the development of constitutional democracies the world over at
the same time that they have underpinned the treaties, principles and institutions that
form the international humanitarian and human rights law framework that nations today
rely upon to discipline the exercise by states of authority vis-à-vis individuals within their
power and to humanize, as much as possible, the treatment of individuals caught up in
armed conflict.

Amici, concerned that, in the context of a global struggle to defend the very
freedoms and limitations on state power that are the bedrock of contemporary
international humanitarian and human rights law, the United States should be seen clearly
to respect its international legal obligations, submit their arguments in the light of this
shared legal tradition and the international legal commitments of both the United States
and the countries of Europe.



--------------
1 The members of the amicus group are identified individually in an Appendix to this Memorandum.
Counsel for Petitioner has consented to the filing of this brief. Counsel for Respondents have indicatedthat they do not take a position regarding the proposed filing at this time.





<the 20 page document continues at the link above>

[nels25]

1. Where is their Jurisdiction in this matter??

JUst asking??

[BurtWorm]

2. What do you mean?

What does their jurisdiction have to do with their submitting an amicus brief? It's irrelevant, isn't it?

[nels25]

3. If so then why do it??

You will only accomplish a giant waste of time.

If this court has no jurisdiction over US action in this matter, than any action they may consider is null and void due to lack of a way to carry out any action they may decide is warranted.

It looks to me that they would need our ascent to conduct whatever it is they wish to do (a trial??) lacking such permission, than everyone is spinning there wheels and wasting time.

The EU has no direct jurisdiction over matters of the United States, and more than a few times they have been only to happy to tell us to pack sand. Under Bush do you honestly think it would not be reciprocated.??

[BurtWorm]

4. Anyone with an opinion can be invited to submit an amicus brief in a case.

It's not up to Bush to opine one way or another how much he likes or dislikes a brief submitted to the court. Those are strictly for the judge in the case to use at his or her discretion. (Amicus means "friend" of the court.) If the argument is good and sound and based in relevant law, it doesn't matter where it comes from.