« "Congress is going to provide oversight" | Main | The Key to the Courthouse Door, Part II »

November 14, 2005

Comments

Katherine, this is outstanding analysis, and you have really clarified to me why senators should have so grossly misunderstood the issues at hand here. (I'll copy it to my note to my Texas senators!)

I would add by the way that I believe the Bush Administration has been exploiting this "gray area" with full knowledge of what they were doing. There have already been so many documented cases of innocent people waiting years to be released, and I shudder to think what life would have been like without the scanty legal scrutiny that has been available to prisoners so far.

When I look at the imprisonment of Afgani poets, I can't help but ask myself why there are no procedures in place to prevent these mishaps from occurring.

I hate to be a pedant - okay, I don't - but didn't the Supremes just grant cert for Hamdan v. Rumsfeld? Do you perhaps mean Hamdi v. Rumsfeld?

Just to add my two cents, great post. This needs much wider ciculation.

Here is a decent collection of media links.
http://fusioner.proboards60.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1131129004

I think it should be emphasized that they are attempting to end run prohibition of torture here.

I understand the tenuous justification that von and Sebastian have used in the past for creating a class of detainees without the Geneva or Constitutional protections.

I understand the practical necessity or dire need to accept certain concessions by the defense in order to at least attempt some possible relief.

I fear those concessions are creating some terrible precedents.

But four of the justices would have found Hamdi's detention unlawful because unauthorized by Congress. Of the five member majority, Rehnquist is gone and Roberts has recused in Hamdan. Moreover, the majority limited its opinion to battlefield captures in Afghanistan. I don't see how Hamdi automatically shows us where the Court might go for other classes of detainees. I particularly don't see how it shows there's no need for Congress to speak on the issue.

"When I look at the imprisonment of Afgani poets, I can't help but ask myself why there are no procedures in place to prevent these mishaps from occurring. "

Posted by: Robert Nagle


Robert, an abusive ruler, whether king or president, doen't want his/her hands to be tied. That would be a reduction of power. These people don't care about stuff like this, on a good day. On other days, they like it, because it's an exercise of arbitrary power.

"I understand the tenuous justification that von and Sebastian have used in the past for creating a class of detainees without the Geneva or Constitutional protections."

Posted by: bob mcmanus

I don't. In the end, there are those who support this sort of thing, and those who don't. We've seen what trusting Bush has bought us.

"I understand the tenuous justification that [...]"

Posted by: bob mcmanus

I don't. In the end, there are those who support this sort of thing, and those who don't.
So what you're saying is that by not understanding, you are opposing? (I think I understand what you mean, but I'm not sure if you wrote what you meant.) I kinda think understanding is orthogonal to opposing/supporting, myself, whatever the object in discussion is.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad