Thursday, June 29, 2006

Strike Three for Gitmo

From the makers of Rasul v. Bush, and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld...

The ruling in the Supreme Court case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld again dismisses core claims of the administration's detention policy. When the administration attempted to claim that, in Guantanamo, the government held inherent authority to 'offshore' the detention and trying of combatants out of the bounds of judicial appeal and review, the assertion was repudiated by SCOTUS. The government, in setting forth its case in Hamdi, assented to the constraints of the Rasul decision, yielding to the right of habeas corpus review held by the federal judiciary. The Hamdi case, while more forceful on the legal principle of extending due process and habeas corpus to detainees, left wide open the broad issue of the parameters of that due process, particularly in what circumstances a detainee's case warranted a higher or lower degree of evidence-bearing and legal recourse. Having not yet finished reading the Hamdan decision, it seemed inevitable beforehand. Legal theory aside (to say I'm no expert is gross understatement), the case's real victory reveals one of the structural benefits of the separation of powers (and proves that the Bush administration hasn't dismantled the thing entirely) - the turf-war incentives of checks and balances. Without triumphalism, the appalling standard of judicial deference to executive authority - the bedrock principle uniting the pomposity of Justice Scalia with the cloying "extra-legal" legal theories of John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, David Addington and so on - now appears to have bitten off more than it ever could chew.


At 11:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You hippy bastard. You will die. Everyone dies eventually. That was not a threat. But, you suck!!!


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home