Talk:Rumsfeld v. Padilla

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

I believe that in this case, the court has already ruled that the jurisdiction in New York was not correct, and that Rumsfeld was the improper custodian. The case needed to be brought before the Eastern Virginia district under Commander Marr (ships commander where Padilla is being held). --24.130.189.156 03:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rendition[edit]

"...the United States uses torture, euphemistically referred to as 'rendition.'"

As I understand, rendition is not a precise synonym for torture. Rather, it refers to the practice of "rendering" the target (e.g. enemy combatant) to a third-party nation, which may or may not torture him or her. This may seem to split hairs, but these are very delicate matters and precision is important. We should resist the temptation to reduce sensitive political issues to their most inflammatory terms. Charles.babbitt