My Photo

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

November 14, 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515c2369e200d83425c47353ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Key to the Courthouse Door, Part I:

» The Axis of Evil from atopian.org
Six countries -- the United States, Britain, Canada, France, Sweden and Kyrgyzstan -- have been singled out for violating international human rights conventions by deporting terrorist suspects to countries such as Egypt, Syria, Algeria and Uzbekistan, wh [Read More]

» PRODUCE THE BODY from The Heretik
THE BODY IN QUESTION is the detainee at Guantanamo, but habeas corpus also means the government needs to produce the evidence by which right someone’s body is held. The Graham amendment lauded by some for clearing the courts of [Read More]

» Empire and Torture from Procrastination
Torture is bad, empire might even be worse, especially when all the people in the world could be its subjects. [Read More]

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.

Whatnot


  • visitors since 3/2/2004

November 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            
Blog powered by Typepad

QuantCast