<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: More on the Military Commissions Act</title>
	<atom:link href="http://emergentchaos.com/archives/2006/10/more-on-the-military-commissions-act.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://emergentchaos.com/archives/2006/10/more-on-the-military-commissions-act.html</link>
	<description>The Emergent Chaos Jazz Combo</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 19:20:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: KipEsquire</title>
		<link>http://emergentchaos.com/archives/2006/10/more-on-the-military-commissions-act.html/comment-page-1#comment-2769</link>
		<dc:creator>KipEsquire</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:00:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentchaos.com/?p=2019#comment-2769</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the kind words.  :-)
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the kind words.  :-)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris</title>
		<link>http://emergentchaos.com/archives/2006/10/more-on-the-military-commissions-act.html/comment-page-1#comment-2768</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:21:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentchaos.com/?p=2019#comment-2768</guid>
		<description>IANAL, but Marbury v. Madison is still a precedent.  This law limits jurisdiction only as long as it is in force.
To that point, I think this law will ultimately be found unconstitutional.  If King George doesn&#039;t like the SC, his only recourse is to pack it (a la FDR),  to wait until enough of its members retire to fill it with yes-men (gender non-neutral word choice deliberate), or to amend the Constitution in a way that authorizes these interrogations and their attendent body of rights-violating procedures.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>IANAL, but Marbury v. Madison is still a precedent.  This law limits jurisdiction only as long as it is in force.<br />
To that point, I think this law will ultimately be found unconstitutional.  If King George doesn&#8217;t like the SC, his only recourse is to pack it (a la FDR),  to wait until enough of its members retire to fill it with yes-men (gender non-neutral word choice deliberate), or to amend the Constitution in a way that authorizes these interrogations and their attendent body of rights-violating procedures.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

