You might think that would be a normal function of a U.S. federal court. But there are those who think that international law -- or what they interpret as "law," should take precedence, apparently including the UPI writer, who seems upset at the ruling. The case involved a Yemeni prisoner at Guantanamo, Ghaleb Nassar al-Bihani. In his petition for release, al-Bihani
challenged "the statutory legitimacy of his detention by advancing a number of arguments based on the international laws of war," the appeals court majority opinion said. Al-Bihani argued "'support,' or even 'substantial support' of al-Qaida or the Taliban as an independent basis for detention violates international lawLeaving aside the fact that a hostile alien captured in wartime shouldn't even be filing legal actions, there are obviously no universally accepted "laws of war." The court rightly rejected such nonsense.
putting aside that we find al-Bihani's reading of international law to be unpersuasive, we have no occasion here to quibble over the intricate application of vague treaty provisions and amorphous customary principles," the opinion added. "The sources we look to for resolution of al-Bihani's case are the sources courts always look to: The text of relevant statutes and controlling domestic case law. Under those sources, al-Bihani is lawfully detained.It's nice to see a high level U.S. court reaffirm that the legality of U.S. actions are defined by U.S. laws. It's unfortunate that even needs to be stated, and that one of the three judge panel dissented from the opinion.