＊【台長說明】
提供以下資訊給有興趣或是跟我一樣很關心，關達那摩戰犯人權案發展近況的朋友們知道摟～真的是很精彩的一場言詞辯論，尤其是關於管轄權的部份！
-----------------------------------------------
案件名稱：Boumediene v. Bush
審理程序：言詞辯論（Oral Argument）
受訴法院：the Supreme Court of the United States,Washington, D.C.
庭期:Wednesday, December 5, 2007
辯論內容錄音檔之參考網址：
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_06_1195/argument/
精彩內容節錄：
SETH P WAXMAN: We don’t contend that the United States exercises sovereignty over Guantanamo Bay.
Our contention is that at common law, sovereignty (a) wasn’t the test, as Lord Mansfield explained, and (b) wasn’t a clear-cut determine... there weren’t clear-cut sovereignty lines in those days.
Our case doesn’t depend on sovereignty.
It depends on the fact that, among other things, the United States exercises... quote...
”complete jurisdiction and control over this base. ”
No other law applies.
If our law doesn’t apply, it is a law-free zone.
JUSTICE ALITO: So the answer to Justice Ginsburg’s question, it wouldn’t matter where these detainees were held so long as they are under U.S. control.
If they were held on a U.S. military base pursuant to a standard treaty with another country, if they were in Afghanistan or in Iraq, the result would be the same?
SETH P WAXMAN: No, I think, Justice Alito, I want to be as clear about this as I can be.
This is a particularly easy straightforward case, but in another place, jurisdiction would depend on the facts and circumstances, including the nature of an agreement with the resident sovereign over who exercises control.
And I want to come back to that with the Japan and German example, because I have read the status of forces agreements there.
Secondly, even if there technically were jurisdiction, there might very well be justiciability issues under the circumstances of the sort that Justice Kennedy addressed in his concurrence in Rasul; that is, there may be circumstances and temporal conditions in which, under the separation of powers, it would be a... a court would deem it inappropriate to exercise that ...
2008/05/31 茱莉亞的學習手記
