1 See section above: U.S. Supreme Court Finds Military Commissions Created by Presidential Order Unlawful.

2 Application of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions to the Treatment of Detainees in the Department of Defense, Memorandum from Deputy Sec’y of Defense Gordon England [addressed to service secretaries and numerous other civilian recipients] (July 7, 2006), at <http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/DepSecDef%20memo%20on%20common%20article%203.pdf .

3 Written Statement of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Before the Senate Judiciary Committee (July 18, 2006), at <http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1987&wit_id=3936.

4 See Zernike, Kate, A Top Republican Is Uncertain on Legislation for Military Tribunals for Terror Suspects, N.Y. Times, July 1, 2006, at A10 Google Scholar; Zernike, Kate & Sheryl Gay, Stolberg, Detainee Rights Create a Divide on Capitol Hill, N.Y. Times, July 10, 2006, at A1 Google Scholar; Zernike, Kate, Administration Prods Congress to Curb the Rights of Detainees, N.Y. Times, July 13, 2006, at A1 Google Scholar; Zernike, Kate, Military Lawyers Urges Protections for Detainees, N.Y. Times, July 14, 2006, at A16 Google Scholar; Zernike, Kate, G.O.P. Senator Resisting Bush over Detainees, N.Y. Times, July 18, 2006, at A1 Google Scholar; Weisman, Jonathan & Abramowitz, Michael, White House Shifts Tack on Tribunals, Wash. Post, July 20, 2006, at A3 Google Scholar; Smith, R. Jeffrey, Top Military Lawyers Oppose Plan for Special Courts, Wash. Post, Aug. 3, 2006, at A11.Google Scholar

5 David, S. Cloud & Stolberg, Sheryl Gay, White House Bill Proposes System to Try Detainees, N.Y. Times, July 26, 2006, at A1 Google Scholar; David, S. Cloud & Sheryl, Gay Stolberg, Rules Debated for Trials of Detainees, N.Y. Times, July 27, 2006, at A18 Google Scholar; Smith, R. Jeffrey & White, Josh, Proposal Calls for Tribunal-Style Trials, Wash. Post, July 27, 2006, at A3 Google Scholar; Smith, R. Jeffrey, On Prosecuting Detainees, Wash. Post, July 28, 2006, at A23 Google Scholar; The Court Under Siege (editorial), N.Y. Times, July 29, 2006, at A26; A Flawed Proposal(editorial), Wash. Post, July 29, 2006, at A18; Smith, R. Jeffrey, White House Proposal Would Expand Authority of Military Courts, Wash. Post, Aug. 2, 2006, at A4.Google Scholar

6 See Smith, R. Jeffrey, Behind the Debate, CIA Techniques of Extreme Discomfort, Wash. Post, Sept. 16, 2006, at A3.Google Scholar

7 See section above: President Confirms Secret Detentions, Transfers CIA Detainees to Guantanamo Bay.

8 18 U.S.C. §2441; see Smith, R. Jeffrey, Worried CIA Officers Buy Legal Insurance, Wash. Post, Sept. 11, 2006, at A1.Google Scholar

9 White, Josh, Military Lawyers Say Tactics Broke Rules, Wash. Post, March 16, 2006, at A13.Google Scholar

10 Smith, R. Jeffrey, Detainee Abuse Charges Feared, Wash. Post, July 28, 2006, at A1 Google Scholar; Zernike, Kate, White House Asks Congress to Define War Crimes, N.Y. Times, Aug. 3, 2006, at A16 Google Scholar; Smith, R. Jeffrey, War Crimes Act Changes Would Reduce Threat of Prosecution, Wash. Post, Aug. 9, 2006, at A1 Google Scholar; Rewriting the Geneva Conventions (editorial), N.Y. Times, Aug. 14, 2006, at A24.

11 [Editor’s Note: This phrase apparently refers to the Supreme Court’s language in its June 2006 discussion in Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon (with regard to the other plaintiff, Mario Bustillo) of the ICJ’s judgments in LaGrand and Avena. As noted above (see section: Supreme Court Rejects Exclusionary Rule and New Trials as Remedies for Failures of Consular Notification), the Supreme Court considered, but rejected, the ICJ’s analysis of the treaty at issue there.]

12 [Editor’s Note: See John, R. Crook, Contemporary Practice of the United States, 100 AJIL 455 (2006).Google Scholar]

13 Prepared Statement of Steven G. Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary (Aug. 2, 2006), at <http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2006/August/06_opa_487.html.

14 See Fact Sheet: The Administration’s Legislation to Create Military Commissions (Sept. 6,2006), at <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060906-6.html.

15 Message to the Congress of the United States (Sept. 6, 2006), at <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060906-4.html.

16 Smith, R. Jeffrey, GOP Senators Differ with President on Military Trials, Wash. Post, Sept. 6, 2006, at A3 Google Scholar; Zernike, Kate, Proposal for New Tribunals for Terror Suspects Would Hew to the First Series, N.Y. Times, Sept. 7, 2006, at A21 Google Scholar; David, E. Sanger, For Congress; Two Votes Loom, N.Y. Times, Sept. 7, 2006, at A1 Google Scholar; Zernike, Kate, Lawyers andG O.P. Chiefs Resist Proposal on Tribunal, N.Y. Times, Sept. 8, 2006, at A1 Google Scholar; Adam, Liptak, Interrogation Methods Rejected by Military Win Bush Support, N.Y. Times, Sept. 8, 2006, at Al Google Scholar; Babington, Charles & Smith, R. Jeffrey, Bush’s Detainee Plan Is Criticized, Wash. Post, Sept. 8, 2006, at A9.Google Scholar

17 See Zernike, Kate, Crucial Senator Says a Few Problems Remain in Bill on Terror Tribunals, N.Y. Times, Sept. 9, 2006, at A10 Google Scholar; Babington, Charles, Cheney, Senators Discuss Detainees, Wash. Post, Sept. 13, 2006, at A7 Google Scholar; Weisman, Jonathan, GOP Leaders Back Bush on Wiretapping Tribunals, Wash. Post, Sept. 14, 2006, at A13 Google Scholar; Carl, Hulse, An Unexpected Collision, N.Y. Times, Sept. 15, 2006, at A14 Google Scholar; Zernike, Kate, Rebuff for Bush on How to Treat Terror Suspects, N.Y. Times, Sept. 15, 2006, at A1 Google Scholar; Babington, Charles & Weisman, Jonathan, Senators Defy Bush on Terror Measure, Wash. Post, Sept. 15, 2006, at Al Google Scholar; A Defining Moment for America (editorial), Wash. Post, Sept. 15, 2006, at A18; Weisman, Jonathan, Tribunal Dispute Could Ruin GOP Strategy, Wash. Post, Sept. 17, 2006, at A5.Google Scholar