More on "the bodies"

[pecunium]

The Administration has appealed the Green ruling In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases in the District Court, up the Circuit.

The gov't (small surprise, and reminiscent of, "all deliberate speed") is fighting with every procedural tool it can find (ah, those glittering technicalities, so abhored when used by a defense att'y, looking to provide a zealous defense, but so handy when one needs to keep people in prison camps without a trial) to stall losing this one.

Green has agreed to stay procedural actions on the 19 cases her ruling affects (the 11 poor bastards who were told they get to fill out the forms, so we can laugh at them for trying, well they are still in the same boat).

This is where the ride gets interesting. Because this is almost certainly going to be an expedited appeal, the Circuit will sit on it soon. The Gov't hopes the Circuit will plump for them, in the interest of losing the keys to the cells. If that happens the prisoners lawyers will appeal to the Supremes. That will take awhile.

If, however, the Circuit upholds Green, 1: the other ruling will be outweighed, and those 11 other prisoners will be entitled to a real hearing. 2: It will almost certainly be appealed in the same way to the Supreme Court.

From here, I'd say the court isn't likely to go as far as Green did (holding the present tribunals are illegal), but they aren't going to accept the Gov't's position either.

It is possible (looking for silver linings) that Gonzo being appointed may make them less likely to be deferentionl to the claims of the administration (might even make O'Connor decide to stay on the bench... but that's more hope than expectation) because Gonzo has been involved (he says he never read, which seems to be damning in, and of, itself) memos telling the President he can ignore the law.


More intersting is what she didn't include in the appealIn agreeing to certify the case to the D.C. Circuit, Green said an immediate appeal was proper on the due process and Geneva Convention issues, but she refused to certify an appeal on her separate order Monday granting the detainees' lawyers access to the classified information the government had submitted to Green as part of its evidence supporting continued detention of individual detainees. She said that did not involve a controlling issue on which there was ground for differing views. But her stay of the pending cases during the appeal apparently will delay the lawyers' access to that information.

SCOTUS Blog

Comments

[juliesmagicmoon.livejournal.com]

This all makes me wonder why other countries are going to feel like they have to treat American POW's with any sense of humanity in the future, and rest assured, there will unfortunately be a future when we have a dumbfuck idiot leader who puts women and men in harms way with no plan, no clue and for reasons that will change at least six times until they retroactively find a message that resonates.

What do I know though, I'm just a frivolous female.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

That is no small part of the rub. The Geneva, and Hague, Conventions are a set of Gentleman's Agreements. They work because people abide by them.

What the present administration tried to do was say: They weren't playing by the rules (which is, perhaps, not the case. One could argue the various fatwa were declarations of war, and as such; from the arguements of Gulio Douhet, and the actions of belligerents, from WW2, to Viet-nam, that the Towers, and the occupants thereof, were legitimate targets) we didn't have to play them either.

The problem is, where do we draw the line, and how. Are we arguing that those who engage in asymetric warfare are not covered? Or is Arabs who aren't covered?

It used to be easy. If they obeyed one of the four tests for combatant status, we granted it. Nowadays we are requiring all four, and refusing some of the protections afforded (the Geneva Conventions of 1949 covered resistance and partisan fighters, of which some of the people in Iraq most certainly qualify. The argument that outside aid disqualifies them flies in the face of Allied activity in WW2, when we sent people to help, and dropped weapons from airplanes. Some to groups, some at random, in the sure and certain hope that some would get to people on our side, and that the rest would be rejected by the enemy (because they were only good for shooting someone, and stealing a weapon).

If such things worked, there might be some justification, realpolitik being a hellish taskmaster, but they don't.

Which means ae are well and truly screwing ourselves, and getting nothing of value in return.

TK

[don-fitch.livejournal.com]

In the past, and within my lifetime, we -- our Government -- have done some (perhaps far too many) sleazy, immoral, or downright Evil things. but most of these were done secretly, and swept under the rug, because ... well... as a people, we were ashamed of them (or would have been if they had become widely-known). The departure, now, is that our Government is attempting to do such things that are profoundly at variance with American Ideals openly and without any sense of shame or even embarrassment. With skillful political finagling, the Administration might make them Legal. I expect to continue considering them morally Wrong, and thoroughly un-American.