Guantamano detainees to be tried under the Obama administration

I remain unimpressed (0.00 / 0)

I will consider this a roll-back of the Bush era when the Military Commissions Act dies the horrid fiery death it truly deserves.  This is a step in the right direction, but Habeas Corpus remains threatened as long as that legislative horror remains a suggestion of the Constitution, instead of the guaranteed law of the land.  

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 21:48:58 PM UTC

Policy Change? (0.00 / 0)

Not to be a naysayer here - but why should enemy combatants get the same legal rights as US citizens?

---

by: Eric Coobs @ Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 23:28:58 PM UTC

er... (0.00 / 0)

...because that's the law.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 00:27:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hold on a Minute (0.00 / 0)

The transition put out a statement backing away from what, it turns out, seems to have been 'informal advisors' touting their advice to the transition in print.  It's an interesting window into the transition's thinking, but not in the way represented in the news stories.

The habeas cases are on a very fast track now, since the district court issued a mass scheduling order last Thursday.  The government will default on the schedule again, I'd bet, but we'll see how that plays out.

Mr. Coobs, habeas has been applied to persons who are not subjects of the detaining authority for centuries.  You have a right to habeas in Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and anywhere else in the Anglosphere that shares this important part of our patrimony.  One of the great exercises of habeas ever involved Lord Mansfield's decision in favor of a resident of Virginia -- a slave, not a citizen of England.  Somersett's case is a real landmark.  Chief Justice John Marshall famously ordered the release of the enemy alien Williams during the war of 1812, in a habeas case.  Habeas is, and the Supreme Court just reaffirmed -- but has been clear for more than 3 centuries -- the most important check on arbitrary government power we have.  Any person in a jail has a right to have the legal basis of his/her imprisonment tested by an impartial authority.  That's what the rule of law means.

On the question of repeal of the MCA, I would say that the practical concern is whether KSM can be put on trial in an ordinary criminal court, or under the UCMJ in a regular military court.  It may be that the Bush administration has mishandled everything so badly that these are not thought possible.  I guess that's what the new Admin will work to figure out.

Confirm thy soul in self control, thy liberty in law.

---

by: CharleyCarp @ Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 23:58:54 PM UTC

I guess it depends on what kind of trial (0.00 / 0)

Charley Carp, are you saying that these enemy combatants should get the same rights that you and I have? Or should these be military-type trials, ending in either an aquittal or a firing squad? I don't recall anything in the Geneva rules that give enemy combatants the same rights as US Citizens, so please clarify your position for me, if you don't mind.

---

by: Eric Coobs @ Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 16:58:44 PM UTC