>>>http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e1de1572-1089-11db-8eec-0000779e2340.html
>>
>>Even nicer, the ruling is based on the premise that there's no such thing as I-am-above-the-law-I'm-a-super-duper-commander-in-chief. Which then tears down the whole house of cards (NSA eavesdropping, phone calls datamining, SWIFT intrusion etc etc).
>>
>
>It says nothing about any of those. You are reading way too much into the decision.

Not I. Don't shoot the messenger. I've read this in someone's comment on DailyKos. IOW... stuffing the supreme court with loyal guys doesn't necessarily mean they're loyal to you. They may be loyal to the law and constitution first. Tough.

>You do realize that we are at war and that information is the primary weapon, do you not?

I do, just not sure where's the business end of this weapon aimed. I just assume, just in case, that whatever I say or write anywhere may be collected, analysed and stored somewhere.

>>Good thing in that article that you mention is that it also has a link to the text of the Geneva Convention: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm
>>Recommended reading from article 49 and onwards - that's what I meant with Bremmer's ruling by edicts, while doing nothing to fulfill the obligations of the occupying force.
>
>You're going to have to be specific here. I don't have time to go through them article by article.

49 to about 60. Not much.