On the recordSeptember 27, 2006
I appreciate that, and I am sorry to interrupt. But I went back to the Hamdi decision that referenced the exchange we had with the chairman in reference to the point the Senator just made. Justice O'Connor said: Hamdi has received no process. An interrogation by one's captor, however effective an intelligence-gathering tool, hardly constitutes a constitutionally adequate factfinding before a neutral decisionmaker. When you turn to the next page, she says: There remains the possibility that the standards we have articulated could be met by an appropriately authorized and properly constituted military tribunal. Indeed, it is notable that military regulations already provide for such process in related instances, dictating that tribunals be made available to determine the status of enemy detainees who assert prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Convention. She is referring to Army regulation 190-8. And my question to Senator Cornyn is, do you agree that Justice O'Connor was telling the Department of Defense that if you will model a tribunal on Army regulation 190-8, you will have met your obligation to have a competent tribunal under the Geneva Conventions to make an enemy combatant status determination?
Source
govinfo.gov




