Talk:Ex parte Quirin

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ex parte Milligan 

message: 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)
thread_title: Name of Coast Guardsman

message: 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)
thread_title:  Relevance of ''List'' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Balance in Discussion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Ex parte Quirin. 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/20070512175803/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13773997/site/newsweek/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13773997/site/newsweek/
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) 01:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ex parte Quirin. 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/20131203001757/http://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/content/articles/2013/01/Kent_66_Vand_L_Rev_153.pdf to http://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/content/articles/2013/01/Kent_66_Vand_L_Rev_153.pdf
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) 02:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The text says that "Since the 1942 Quirin case, the U.S. signed and ratified the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which were thus considered to be a part of U.S. municipal law, in accordance with Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Constitution of the United States (the Supremacy Clause)." It cites Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State, apparently a 1963 "Tokyo District Court" case. This case would have limited precedential value in the United States and does not seem to address the Geneva Conventions in any case.
It is certainly true that the Supremacy Clause incorporates treaties into U.S. law, but most treaties are not "self-enforcing" under U.S. law. Under that doctrine, non-self-enforcing treaties do not provide rights or remedies to people unless there is additional implementing legislation. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is the most salient example. So there is actually significant debate over whether the Geneva Conventions are self-enforcing, a point the text skips over. Checkpoint42 (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of Geneva Conventions as "municipal law" 

message: I added the February 2022 Bush memo on Geneva Conventions, which seemed to be missing. The double negative "not 'not of an international character'" is intentional, and an artifact of the Bush Memo's reasoning. Also added the 2009 Military Commissions Act treatment of Geneva Conventions, which replaced the 2006 Military Commission Act. Checkpoint42 (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  February 2002 Bush Memo on Geneva Conventions