...the SCOTUS decision in Hamden v. Rumsfeld, despite the soundbites you may be hearing or out-of-context snippets you may be reading, does NOT equal a victory for the moonbats who want GITMO closed and all the prisoners therein tried in our courts or released.
Hamdan
By DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. and LEE A. CASEY
June 30, 2006; Page A12
The Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, invalidating for now the use of military commissions to try al Qaeda and associated detainees, may be a setback for U.S. policy in the war on terror. But it is a setback with a sterling silver lining. All eight of the justices participating in this case agreed that military commissions are a legitimate part of the American legal tradition that can, in appropriate circumstances, be used to try and punish individuals captured in the war on terror. Moreover, nothing in the decision suggests that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay must, or should, be closed.Indeed, none of the justices questioned the government's right to detain Salim Ahmed Hamdan (once Osama bin Laden's driver), or other Guantanamo prisoners, while hostilities continue. Nor did any of them suggest that Mr. Hamdan, or any other Guantanamo detainee, must be treated as civilians and accorded a speedy trial in the civilian courts. Precisely because opponents of the Bush administration's detention policies have advanced these, or substantially similar claims, Hamdan has dealt them a decisive defeat. Together with the Supreme Court's 2004 decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld -- directly affirming the government's right to capture and detain, without criminal charge or trial, al Qaeda and allied operatives until hostilities are concluded -- Hamdan vindicates the basic legal architecture relied upon by the administration in prosecuting this war.
Heh. Who knew I was a Constitutional scholar?
Did I mention my Dad went to Law School with Scalia, roomed below him at Harvard, had a roommate with an early "Hi-Fi" system that bugged the bejeezus out of Scalia's roommate, who later became one of my Dad's law partners? Must be where I get it...
(Yeah, yeah, I know he was in the minority dissent yesterday, but it doesn't matter, all of the justices thought GITMO was fine, holding these creeps without trial was fine, and military commissions would be fine too if Congress changes the law to allow it. Nothing inherently unconstitutional about them, just unconstitutional to set them up in total secret without Congress knowing about them or how they are administered.
OK Congress! Do your thang!
Posted by insomnomaniac at June 30, 2006 3:10 PM | TrackBack