Comments on: Terrorism tribunals upheld

By: INTEL DUMP

INTEL DUMP — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 04:45:29 +0000

A Qualified Endorsement of the Military Commission

The decision handed down today by the three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court in the Hamdan case strikes me as a less than ringing endorsement of the government

By: INTEL DUMP

INTEL DUMP — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 00:27:04 +0000

A Civilian Jumps Into The Fray

Thanks to Phil’s kind invitation of a couple of weeks ago, I am proud and pleased to join the team here at ID. I won’t be able to post anything substantive for another couple of weeks due to other committments, but I thought I’d at least offer you, ki…

By: INTEL DUMP

INTEL DUMP — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 00:26:17 +0000

A Civilian Jumps Into The Fray

By: ohwilleke

ohwilleke — Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:34:06 +0000

Upon reading the opinion, the most striking element is how little it has to say about Hamdi and Rasul. Rasul is essentially viewed as creating a right to a hearing at which there are no substantive rights which can be claimed. Hamdi is mentioned in support of the notion that military tribunals can determine POW status, but the bold statements in the enemy combatant cases that the President does not have a blank check are replaced with extensive citations to the effect that the President should be deferred to as much as possible.

IIRC, two of the judges on this panel were also on the panel that made the appellate court ruling in Hamdi, which was subsequently overturned. The likelihood of a grant of certiori in this case seems great.

By: Richard Samp

Richard Samp — Fri, 15 Jul 2005 17:08:47 +0000

Today’s decision spells trouble for the Guantanamo detainees who are challenging their detention. Their principal claim is that they are being detained in violation of their rights under the Third Geneva Convention. The D.C. Circuit panel that hears their claims in October will be bound by today’s determination that the Geneva Conventions create no individually enforceable rights. The detainees will still be able to raise due process objections to their detention, but their constitutional claims have always been on much shakier ground than their Geneva Convention claims.