Comments on: Court allows detainee transfer to Libya http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-allows-detainee-transfer-to-libya/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:56:34 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Joe Paulson http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-allows-detainee-transfer-to-libya/comment-page-1/#comment-11171 Joe Paulson Thu, 03 May 2007 02:41:21 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-allows-detainee-transfer-to-libya/#comment-11171 The statements are just a bit ironic given that a quite credible case can be made that the government's denial of adequate rights of those being detained is ITSELF a war crime (among other acts). The 'just trust us' sentiment also, pardon me, is simply not too uh trustworthy. The statements are just a bit ironic given that a quite credible case can be made that the government’s denial of adequate rights of those being detained is ITSELF a war crime (among other acts). The ‘just trust us’ sentiment also, pardon me, is simply not too uh trustworthy.

]]> By: Andrew Oh-Willeke http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-allows-detainee-transfer-to-libya/comment-page-1/#comment-11170 Andrew Oh-Willeke Wed, 02 May 2007 17:20:10 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-allows-detainee-transfer-to-libya/#comment-11170 Associate Justices Kennedy and Stevens, while refraining from voting for certiorari in the lastest round of detainee cases, also seemed to leave the door open for some SCOTUS litigation of these cases. This suggestion seems like an implicit suggestion that the jurisdictional ban of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is not absolute. Is Chief Justice Roberts making an end run around that suggestion in this ruling? Associate Justices Kennedy and Stevens, while refraining from voting for certiorari in the lastest round of detainee cases, also seemed to leave the door open for some SCOTUS litigation of these cases. This suggestion seems like an implicit suggestion that the jurisdictional ban of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is not absolute.

Is Chief Justice Roberts making an end run around that suggestion in this ruling?

]]>