Talk:Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

message: The charges dismissed against Hamdan and Khadr are most likely not the end of ongoing legal relevance, as both were dismissed on a technicality. This technicality being shared by all inmates of Guantanamo, Hamdan and Khadr, as well as other former and current inmates, would likely be re-tried in a different setting.
142.179.73.188 (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dismissal of Charges possibly not the end of relevance

message: Are you sure the case was decided on July 15, 2005?  this memorandum (signed by Robertson) is dated November 8, 2004. Sorenr
Dear Sorenr:  That memorandum that you are talking about is the petition to the D.C. Circuit to have the case heard.  The Court of Appeals (or the Supreme Court for that matter) can choose not to hear a case, therefore, you usually have to go through the process of filing legal briefs just to get your case heard, which I am sure happened either in early 2004 or late 2003 and then the Court hear the arguments on whether to take the case and they made their decision to take the case on November 8, 2004--a decision to hear.  The decision on July 15, 2005 was the decision by the Court on the merits. Now the Petitioner can choose to ask the full Court to hear the case again or the U.S. Supreme can choose to hear the case in any case their are going to be more memorandums and decisions.  Generally a memorandum is a decision to hear, not a decision on the merits.-----Keetoowah 20:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I took the time to read the Memo and it is the District Court decision.  This article is about the Court of Appeals decision that overturned the District Court.  Judge Robertson was the District Court judge that was overturned.-----Keetoowah 22:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: The article needs to cover Robertson's ruling.  I started a subsection on Robertson's ruling.  But I think it needs to be expanded.  --  Geo Swan 08:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: article needs to cover Robertson's ruling

message: The article contains the unreferenced assertions that Hamdan has admitted to being a "close aide" to bin Laden.  I have been doing my best to follow this case in the press, and I don't remember reading any authoritative source asserting that Hamdan has made this admission.  The prosecution may claim that Hamdan made this admission.  And, if he has a fair trial, the prosecution will have to prove this assertion.  It is POV to present this as an accepted fact.  --  Geo Swan 08:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This Irish Times article identifies Hamdan as bin Laden's former driver. That doesn't preclude his being a "close aide," but suggests a less personal relationship. --BDD 00:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no argument in the decision that gov't offered any facts demonstrating that he was a close aide. If there had been any, it would have appeared in the dissent. rewinn 01:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: unreferenced assertion

message: At first it was only outside critics who the public was aware of.
But in the summer of 2005 leaked memos showed that three of the prosecutors had complained that their boss had told them that the commissions would be conducted so that convictions were certain.  They were told that the Tribunal officers had been chosen to be sure to convict and that any evidence that would clear the suspects would be classified, so that the defense attorneys would not get access to it.  Those three lawyers have all, subsequently been promoted, while their boss resigned his commission.  Spin doctors claim his resignation had nothing to do withis this scandal.
How much coverage of this scandal belongs in this article?  --  Geo Swan 08:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a controversy may merit a separate page, perhaps to be refenced in this page, but should not be a significant part of this page because (a) this is a pretty big page already, (b) the workings of the commissions and any attendant injustice would merit its own page even if this case never existed, (c) from a legal standpoint the 'inside baseball' of the commissions is not (very) relevant, at least to the extent that we maintain the polite fiction that law is the impartial application of statutes and principles. So let me encourage you to draft a good wikipedia article of the 'Controversy' type on the subject and then let us know about it; I would find it interesting ... just not on this page.  rewinn 22:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: discussion of the fundamental injustice of the commissions?

message: The court actually held that SPECIAL military tribuals were illegal under current US law. The opinions from those in the majority go on to state that congress could grant the authority to create these special military tribials. Bryer (a member of the majority) even states in his opinion that perhaps the easyist legal way for the President to try them would be to use regular military tribuals instead. Jon 16:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too simplistic a summary, needs nuisanced

message: How can ANY military tribunal be held in a undeclaired war?  While I was in the military, I realized that I reliquished all of my constitutional rights, and was given the Uniform Code of Military Justice in its place.  The government need comply with neither the Geneva Convention, nor the U.C.M.J. if there is no declared war.  Someone needs to educate us undereducated folks about what powers were handed to the president in the "Special Powers Act" to fight the "War on Terror?" User:W8IMP 21:07 29 June 2006 (UTC)
* I would imagine that the basic argument presented by the administration (and one they relied upon heavily in the past) is that since the Authorization for Use of Military Force that Congress passed in 2002 gave the Executive "all necessary and appropriate force," he is merely relying on that authorization to do this. I'll read the opinion and see. RidG Talk/Contributions 22:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, the US must at all times comply with international law and treaties such as the Geneva Conventions, which it has signed and ratified. Under the US Constitution the Geneva Conventions are "the Supreme Law of the Land". The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) is understood to be constitutionally equivalent to a declaration of war, and this court decision treats it as such, although the majority opinion made the point that the 9/11 attacks  themselves automatically put the US in a state of war and granted the President certain "war powers". The President had argued that the AUMF additionally gave him other authority e.g. to create a parallel system of justice, but the Court has told the President that he does not have that authority -- unless Congress explicitly grants it by law. The UCMJ is one option for trying Hamdan. --Dhartung | Talk 00:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, the US must at all times comply with international law and treaties such as the Geneva Conventions, which it has signed and ratified.  The argument of the dissent is that no, they don't.  According to the dissent, the Geneva Conventions are not self-executing. -Anon
* Ergo, if the U.S. doesn't like the laws as they exist, they just make up new ones.  During WWII Germany had to follow the Geneva Convention as it applied to prisoners of war.  Japan, not having signed the G.C. did not.  On December 8, 1941, FDR, in a joint session of congress, said, "...since the sudden and deliberate attack by Japanese naval and air forces, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Empire of Japan."
While some prisoners in Abu Grabe and Gauntanamo should have had their RPGs taken away, many were fingered by their neighbors, and in some intances their relatives, strictly for the cash reward.  How does someone with no evidence identify a prisoner of war with no evidence?   How much time and money are we supposed to spend beating the "truth" out of them?  If we are to have a "war on terror" why can't the administration ask congress to declare one, and then the U.S. can clearly comply with UCMJ law, and both sides will have to abide by the terms of the Genenva Convention?--User:W8IMP 17:18, 01 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What about the fundamentals?

message: This article is listed on the front page and many people have been editing it, so there's potential for duplication of work. Please place your name below if you're working on some section of the article.Chaser T
===Court's opinions===
* Majority/Plurality by: Stevens done; review requested
* Concurrence by: Breyer
**Dhartung | Talk 03:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a very high level overview of this. But if more needs written, please do so. Jon 16:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jon, I've expanded the Thomas' dissent section, keeping your content largely intact. RidG Talk/Contributions 03:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I've added a stub marker for this section and the one thing that was clear enough. Unfortunely, I wasn't able to distinich between what Thomas & Alito are saying other than to note that Alito is a whole lot more concise (around 7 pages) than Thomas (around 45 pages). I'm still not positive enough to outright state in the article itself that Alito's disent is a summary of Thomas. Jon 16:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I am currently working on the dissent, and think that I have overcome the hurdle which faced User:Jon.  I am just working on condensing my writing and organizing it based on Alito's framework for his argument.  --Assawyer 22:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Work since release of the decision

message: * Majority/Plurality by: Stevens done; review requested
* Concurrence by: Breyer
**Dhartung | Talk 03:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a very high level overview of this. But if more needs written, please do so. Jon 16:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jon, I've expanded the Thomas' dissent section, keeping your content largely intact. RidG Talk/Contributions 03:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I've added a stub marker for this section and the one thing that was clear enough. Unfortunely, I wasn't able to distinich between what Thomas & Alito are saying other than to note that Alito is a whole lot more concise (around 7 pages) than Thomas (around 45 pages). I'm still not positive enough to outright state in the article itself that Alito's disent is a summary of Thomas. Jon 16:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I am currently working on the dissent, and think that I have overcome the hurdle which faced User:Jon.  I am just working on condensing my writing and organizing it based on Alito's framework for his argument.  --Assawyer 22:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Court's opinions

message: According to this New York Times article , there was a great deal of international and domestic reaction to this decision, including bills that are currently being drafted. I think there should be a section that includes some of the comments from major organizations about the decision and the reaction of the United States Congress. --MZMcBride 06:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'll get to it if I have time.--Chaser T 19:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Frankly, the whole article could use some reworking to reflect its broader implications. Look at the Washington Post's analysis for example. Some of this could go in the lead.--Chaser T 20:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reaction to the decision 

message: The article mentions part of the decision is plurality, part not. I think the bit about whether conspiracy is within the grasp of a commission (as a violation of the laws of war) is part that Kennedy didn't sign on to but if it's not, that should be cleared up. Whether commissions can try any old crime at all, or just war crimes, would seem to be important. rewinn 21:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the section of Stephens opinion clearly needs subdivided into the portions that Kennedy signed onto making those sections a majority and the sections that Kennedy didn't sign, making those sections a plurity. Jon 14:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should probably also be mentioned that the Breyers and Kennedy opinions are pluralities---they have 4 supporters each, like the Stevens non-majority sections do. --Delirium 17:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that an opinion is a plurality only where there is not already a majority opinion. I could be wrong, but again I'll defer to a lawyer.--Chaser T 19:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a plurality opinion is an opinion that is joined by more justices than any other opinion rendered in a specific case but by less than 50% of the total number of justices.  Thus, there was no plurality opinion in this case, there are a majority opinion and several concurring opinions that just so happen to be joined by 3 or 4 justices.  In the case of the relevant portions of Stevens' opinion that do not constitute the majority opinion, these are typically denoted simply as "an opinion", not a concurrence or plurality. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 19:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I called one section of Steven's opinion a "plurality" section based on what was in the infobox. Wouldn't both of those be incorrect and it be more proper to not have the infobox listing of a separate opinion (which it's not)?--Chaser T 20:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's certainly more correct.  What a mess of opinions. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 20:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a mess indeed; some of the concurring opinions even refer to "the plurality opinion" at times, by which I think they mean the whole of Stevens's opinion.  That is, if you take each opinion as an indivisible whole, and look at who supported the entirety of each, the Stevens opinion is a plurality opinion with 4 votes.  The Breyer opinion and parts of the Kennedy opinion also have 4 votes, of course, but since they "concur" with Stevens, rather than merely "concur in the judgment", I believe they aren't considered competing.  However as far as the opinion of the court goes, that is solely the parts of Stevens's opinion that received the support of five justices (as reflected in the running page headers, which switch from "opinion of the court" to "opinion of stevens, j." on the pages Kennedy didn't join.  What a mess of terminology. --Delirium 01:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So is the situation that, as to the judgement there is a majority (reverse and remand) but as to the opinions (the reasoning for the judgement) there are various opinions? If so, this may be less of a mess than appears at first blush. For example, a quick skim of Kennedy's text suggest he doesn't join in some of Stevens' opinion not because he disagrees, but out of judicial parsimony (the philosophy that you don't decide more than you absolutely must, to decide a particular case).  If this is the case, it may be helpful to the lay reader to understand the difference between the judgement & the opinions. rewinn 19:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, not quite that either.  Kennedy actually concurred with Stevens's opinion in part; he didn't just concur in the judgment (which is written and filed differently).  I think legally the parts of Stevens's opinion that Kennedy joined are the majority opinion (they're annotated as "the opinion of the court"), and all other opinions, including the remaining part of Stevens's, are just non-majority opinions.  In particular, Stevens would have made an additional judgment that charges of conspiracy can't be tried at military commissions, which didn't receive a majority and therefore isn't part of the judgment of the court. --Delirium 22:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Might be worth restructuring the page to fit the Court's structure: first the opinion of the Court, then the opinion of Stevens, then the opinion of the Court again, et cetera.  It may seem complicated in the abstract, but done concretely it might actually be simpler. I would try it in the sandbox first, to get opinions on whether that works better --- don't want to muck up this page with a design theory! rewinn 07:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: issue: which parts plurality?

message: I added a new subsection concerning the plurality. As I read the case summary, Kennedy basically didn't think he needed to get to those points; that's a distinction that the public reading this article might find interesting. Also Stevens' discussion about whether commissions can try conspiracy is also pretty interesting) rewinn 07:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Conspiracy is a huge point of contention in public international law...if anyone cares to tackle that one. (Robp 20:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Subsection: Plurality

message: An important part of the majority/plurality opinion is addressing the dissents. Doing so npov has its challenges ... since the opinions are, fundamentally, opinions and therefore inherently pov.   It didn't seem right to put the responses to the dissents in the dissent's section (although I could be wrong about that ...) but also not right not to include the opinion's comments on the dissents since they show important parts of the logic. I took a 1st attempt at what seemed to be the  two most important issues (jurisdiction-stripping, and the start of the war). I imagine this will all need quite some refinement. rewinn 07:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Subsection: Addressing the Dissents

message: Shouldn't it also be mentioned how rare it is for Thomas to ask questions during Oral Arguments? Jon 13:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that trivia? Interesting, perhaps, but this article is already pretty long. rewinn 21:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thomas

message: "who was being tried before a military courts-martial"
courts-martial is a (here unneeded) plural form, isn't it ? Apokrif 16:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably region of the world specific (or at least American vs British) like many other such minor spelling differences, assuming it wasn't a typo to begin with. I do agree that "court-martial" is normal for US usage, and this does deal with an american subject, so "court-martial" would be better than "courts-martial". Jon 16:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was my typo and I fixed it. Thanks for catching it.--Chaser T 20:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court-martial 

message: Has anything happened as a result?  Has the White House released any statement?  Please add any new developments to this section for discussion, or be bold and put them in the article.  Kasreyn 23:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, an "aftermath" section in the article itself would appear to be a crystal ball. However, Senator Specter (R-PA), chairman of the Judicary Committee a few hours after the decision did annouce that perhaps anticipating this decision he's had a draft bill since Feburary that would specificly give the President the authority to set up military tribuals. He offically introduced it and annouced that there will be hearings early next week when Congress gets back from the 4th of July "district work period". In his statement he also stated that the reason he held off offically introducing this until today is that he felt it would have been inapprotive to do while the case was pending. (My source is C-SPAN's coverage of his Senate Speach that aired this past weekend. I'm not sure how long it takes for the Senate to publish it's speaches into the senate record.) Jon 14:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Developments? 

message: I put up a mere yahoonews link for the important statement by the White House recognizing the Geneva Conventions. I can't find it on the White House web site; if you can find a link to the original document, please overlay rewinn 17:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Need Better Link for 7/11/06 statement

message: Who are the other parties in "Rumsfeld, et al."? --MZMcBride 05:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Donald H. Rumsfeld, United States Secretary of Defense; John D. Altenburg, Jr., Appointing Authority for Military Commissions, Department of Defense; Brigadier General Thomas L. Hemingway, Legal Advisor to the Appointing Authority for Military Commissions; Brigadier General Jay Hood, Commander Joint Task Force, Guantanamo, Camp Echo, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; George W. Bush, President of the United States.
Not sure it's really worth including, though; mostly a bunch of trivia summarizable as "anyone remotely related to Hamdan's custody". --Delirium 08:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the reply. I looked for a little, but it couldn't have been easy to find. --MZMcBride 20:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Is there an open source picture of Salim Ahmed Hamdan available? This is a historic case and it would really help the article.Cdogsimmons 02:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His attorneys provided a photo briefly visible on the video I posted here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pk_yq3sWA-I
(The entire presentation is here: /view_play_list?p=9DEAA044055467C6 )
Is it worth my going back to them & trying to get permission?  rewinn 00:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture?

message: Section "Reaction to the decision" is not well ordered. It starts by talking about the impact on Hamdan itself, veers off into discussing the MCA's enactment in October, then back into reactions immediately after the decision in July. I suggest there are a couple of ways to organize the section:
* Strictly temporally
* By topic, e.g. "On Hamdan", "By the Political Branches", "On Executive Power"
* Or ????
I would avoid getting too much into the MCA since that is well coverered in its own article; it should suffice to note that the relevant law immediately after the decision was issued may have changed with the signing of the MCA.
What-Say? rewinn 05:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section "Reaction to the decision" and the MCA

message: When I looked at the article a few minutes ago, it had a pron picture at the top. I went back thru history to see where it'd been added, but it was there for several generations. So I went to current generation; pron still there. I deleted 1st line; bad stuff went away. But the 1st line's pretty innocuous & I think User:Jersyko put it back, with no ill effect. I have no explanation; let me know if you know what happened. Anyway, the article seems o.k. now.   rewinn 02:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My best guess is that the  template, used in the first line, was vandalized, which affected every article on which it is used.  Either that, or you're having pron hallucinations :) · j e r s y k o talk · 02:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah! thanks,  that would explain it.  Template:For's history shows there was an attack then, ( although the other explanation is not impossible ;-) )  rewinn 19:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Puzzling Technical Q re vandalism

message: Startling. - Patricknoddy 5:26pm, January 11, 2007 (EST)
:How so? (...with respect to the article?) rewinn 19:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decision 

message: This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Ruslik 11:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review &mdash; kept

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/hamdan/2007/03/08/
*:Triggered by \bdailyreckoning\.(?:com|org|co\.uk)\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: > Sentenced Hamdan to 66 months, reduced by time served to five and a half months. In November 2008, the US transferred him to Yemen, where he served his last month. After release, he joined his family in Sana. In October 2012, the US Appeals Court for the District of Columbia, overturned Hamdan's conviction, acquitting him of the charge. EOF
The story told ends abruptly, giving a lop-sided conclusion to this article. What happened ever after, did Hamdan receive x million USD compensation? Sixty six months is a lot of time, easily 10% of a middle east man's life expectancy. 2A01:368:E013:2F:45B2:AE9A:A1A:761A (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article ends abruptly. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070606085036/http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=ead5bb60-723b-4f87-a2fe-2dbe0845d8f2 to http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=ead5bb60-723b-4f87-a2fe-2dbe0845d8f2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060614093747/http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/certgrants/2005/hamvrum.html to http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/certGrants/2005/hamvrum.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060418142018/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/11/breaking-news-supreme-court-to-hear.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/11/breaking-news-supreme-court-to-hear.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060331044835/http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/003208.php to http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/003208.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070913090752/http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/62/21075 to http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/62/21075
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081122004249/http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/07/09/supreme-courts-ruling-in-hamdan-means-warrantless-eavesdropping-is-clearly-illegal/ to http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/07/09/supreme-courts-ruling-in-hamdan-means-warrantless-eavesdropping-is-clearly-illegal/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050913031126/http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2004/0responses/2004-0702.resp.html to http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2004/0responses/2004-0702.resp.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060703151319/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/06/hamdan-v-rumsfeld-supreme-court.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/06/hamdan-v-rumsfeld-supreme-court.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060705074010/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/07/hamdan-common-article-3-and-true.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/07/hamdan-common-article-3-and-true.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060109233235/http://www.wlf.org/Litigating/casedetail.asp?detail=303 to http://www.wlf.org/Litigating/casedetail.asp?detail=303
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060624005214/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/03/why-hamdan-is-right-about-conspiracy.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/03/why-hamdan-is-right-about-conspiracy.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2009/09/22/george-clooney-to-direct-matt-damon-in-aaron-sorkins-war-on-terror/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified