The country which ratifying the convention is not obligated to the terms of the convention if the foe themselves never ratified it.

Probably any newspaper from December '05. The best bet would be the NY TIMES.

And round and round we go...

It may be your opinion that terrorism is not a threat. But that opinion is not shared by the executive. And he has the constitutional authority to make that deternation and to act upon it.

The courts do not have absolute authority. Everyone likes to talk about the "separation of powers" yet those people never seem to quite understand that powers are also separated AWAY from the legislative and judiciary. The power of the executive is not dependent upon the aquiescence of the legislative or judiciary. just like the power of the legislative is not dependent upon the aquiescence of the executive. And so on.

Which is why it is not at all dysfunctional that USSC does not have "important information" which the executive has. The judiciary does not have authority in determining USA foreign policy or security policy.That is, constitutionally, the authority of the executive.

The burden of proof is on you, friend. I never heard anything about what you claim is true, and I read the New York Times every day.

Actually, it is the judicial branch's job to interpret the Constitution, and the president's job to enforce it. The courts have the Constitutional authority, and the president does not.

The power of Judicial Review belongs to the court, not the president, as established by Marbury vs. Madison.

The judiciary has the right to decide what the other branches and their own branch can and cannot do, according to the Constitution.

Yes, and the Constitution gives control of foreign policy to the executive. If the executive decides terrorism is a threat and he acts upon it, he has that constutional authority. The courts do not have the authority to rule otherwise.

Imprisoning people from America and abroad without protection of the laws is not allowed under the Constitution or International Law, which we are responsible for respecting, since we make such a fuss about other nations upholding.

That is not true. You may wish it be so, and maybe it should be, but it isn't the case. Arned brigands, private millitias are simply not afforded the same protections which more established and organised units are.

That's odd, because the SCOTUS and the Geneva Conventions say otherwise.

SCOTUS said otherwise. But they did not have the authority to make such a decision. The Geneva Convention does not treat every Tom, Dick or Harry who picks up a gun the same as an established armed force.