The Federal courts clearly have jurisdiction only over (i) U.S. citizens, (ii) persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and (iii) others to whom Congress extends the courts' jurisdiction. Foreigners abroad have no Constitutional rights, and the courts have nothing to say about what the government does or doesn't do to them. Just as the government can kill or capture them, so it can torture them, summarily execute them, or imprison them indefinitely. To the extent the president or his advisors, or military personnel, violate specific laws or regulations, they can be punished, and to the extent they violate treaties or conventions, the other parties to those treaties and conventions can retaliate. But even then, the violation is against the United States iteself, not against the detainee, who has no recourse under law except to the extent specifically granted by Congress or the executive.

The courts' recent jurisprudence on this topic has been an outrageous and indefensible attempt to extend U.S. constitutional protections to everyone in the world. The political branches should ignore these rulings as the lawless, result-oriented ravings they are, and continue to do with detainees as they see fit in the interest of national security. They should also look into impeaching the judges that hand down these rulings.

"Result oriented" decisions by the Supreme Court have been around for more than a century. See Dred Scott, for example, in which Taney asserted a power that wasn't a part of the decision facing the Court. He wanted a "result": the legalization of slavery throughout the United States. The Congress has always had the power to restrict any decisions of the SC to only those types of cases that it was given jurisdiction over. It can also recraft laws to avoid Constitutional questions. More important, the Constitution provides the power of amendment. If Congress decides that the SC is asserting too much power in either a specific or general issue, it can use the power of amendment to strike down that power. Finally, the Court can simply be ignored, as Andrew Jackson did. The legal tradition of judicial review, however it was created and however valid or invalid it is, is deep-seated, but it is not written in stone.

Hmm.... "They're just doing what Taney did in Dred Scott" seems a somewhat less than full-throated defense.

I'm aware of Andrew Jackson's reaction to Marshall's ruling in favor of the Cherokees, and a similar course of action is what my original post recommended with respect to the recent detainee rulings. Of course, Marshall was right and Jackson lawless, while today the equities are reversed, but ultimately it's better that the elected branches exercise their own constitutional judgment when faced with a patently lawless court ruling.

I would prefer that the political branches make such decisions myself. However, in the current cases, I'm afraid that the political branches have not been paying much attention to the "inalienable" rights provided by a "Creator." Perhaps there are no such rights. I might add that the Court has not been trying to extend "constitutional protections to everyone in the world." The Court has been concerned only with those under the jurisdiction of the United States. I haven't your your position on what makes the Court's decisions "patently lawless." In fact, I question your use of the word "patently." What is patent to you is obviously not patent to the Court.

Correction: I haven't HEARD your position...."

"The Federal courts clearly have jurisdiction only over (i) U.S. citizens, (ii) persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and (iii) others to whom Congress extends the courts' jurisdiction."

********************

This would seem to include jurisdiction over the President, the military, the cia, etc. etc. The Constitution does not merely 'protect' certain persons, it also limits the power of others (namely, those in government) to perform certain acts. The powers of even the president are not unlimited ---regardless of whether those suffering from thos acts are U.S. citizens or not. The constitution is not merely a protective device that can only be employed by "special" people - it is also a limiting device which keeps government (and the people who make it up) from using powers that have been proscribed. At least that is what many 'conservative' legal scholars of the "limited government" school would argue.

I am amazed that someone would suggest that the political branches simply ignore the courts and do what they please. It sounds to me that, like Sir Thomas Moore's prospective Son-in-Law in "A Man for All Seasons", you would "cut down every Law in England" to get at your devil.

MF, you seem to have it backwards. You somehow presume that the US Government has infinite power extra-territorially. Yet the 10th Amendment is very very clear on this

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, ...are reserved....to the people

IOW absent delegated powers, THE GOVERNMENT is not allowed to act, regardless of where it does so. Now combine that with Article III:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;

IOW, the Court's judicial power extends to deciding what powers have and have NOT been delegated to the United States government. And this applies to ALL conflicts the USA is a party to... last I checked, wars were something of a "controversy" between the USA and another nation.

So explain again where exactly how SCOTUS' jurisprudence is "outrageous"?

Even by your own standards:

The Federal courts clearly have jurisdiction only over (i) U.S. citizens, (ii) persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States,

Are you arguing that the USA does not control the territory within the gates of Bahgram?

It's a darn shame when the courts try to limit the power of a president to run around the world and do whatever he wants.