We talked about this last night- since Dan is an attorney, I htought he could enlighten me. But it really isn't simple. It really isn't just about protecting the rights of the innocent in this case. It's about the Constitution, and the status of the prisoners at GITMO. And whether they fit into that section that allows for the lifting of habeas corpus.
They aren't citizens. They were apprehended in a war. We concluded that the problem is the lack of boundaries in this "war" in extent or duration, and the ill-defined nature of exactly WHAT these guys are.
Personally, I agree with the majority- if we are going to err, let it be on the side of justice. But I don't see this as either side being right or wrong. Only when they start adding, as Scalia did, that the decision was wrong not because of the legal logic but because it causes problems for the military or the courts does it bother me.
Was the court this divided the first time around on their decision? Dan asked, and I didn't know.
The struggle between the branches ( my pissing contest, which was a poor choice of phrase) is something that can (and should)occur when you have the legislative and executive branch rewriting laws in order to get around the judicial branch, and the jud. asserting its own powers. It's supposed to happen. But I do wonder, since Scalia seemed to be going some on his "feelings", being human can't influence their interpretation. Well, I can answer that to myself. of course it can, since so many are actually deciding to vote Rep or Dem based not on the candidate but his appointments in either direction. |
