User talk:George Swan/sandbox/Benjamin G. Davis

The {{subpages}} template is designed to be used within article clusters and their related pages.
It will not function on User talk pages.

	NOTICE, please do not remove from top of page.
	No "from wikipedia" disclaimer is necessary because I was the sole author of this version. George Swan 00:12, 15 April 2008 (CDT)
	Check the history of edits to see who inserted this notice.

Dead link and dubious event

I moved this to the talk page, as the link is dead, and the notability of a "citizen's hearing" is dubious: what legitimacy does it have? Is it a court? Howard C. Berkowitz 05:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Testified on behalf of Ehren Watada==

Davis testified before a "Citizens' hearing on the legality of U.S. actions in Iraq" that considered the case of Lieutenant Ehren Watada. Watada is an officer in the United States Army who declined to serve in Iraq because he believed the United States actions in Iraq are illegal.

Merge this

The original legal theories here, citing at least one Supreme Court decision, need to be merged into the legal arguments in Extrajudicial detention, U.S., George W. Bush Administration, giving due regard to that Davis was not an attorney directly involved in the process for prosecution or defense and did not participate cases related to it. There are legal opinions from Government attorneys that his summary may counterbalance.

I'll simply note that the habeas corpus involved are more complex than this article suggests. The main prior case denying them had been Johnson v. Eisentrager, while the Court held, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, that specific circumstances applied to prisoners in Guantanamo.

It would be useful to create an article on the Supreme Court decision mentioned here and not elsewere, Hirota v. McArthur, and link it to other cases that cited it. It would also be useful to have an article on something not covered under that name, the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, unless this is another term for the Military Commissions Act, which I don't think it is.

Otherwise, this really should be merged and deleted, once the true content goes into broader articles. Many law professors make comments; the notable ones are the ones whose comments relate directly to court cases, legislation, or even signficant public protest. None of those criteria appear to apply here. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)