Replies

Firstly, every case is different. There are significant differences between the Hamdi and Padilla cases, for example. Note that my previous posts were not aimed specifically at the Hamdi case. The evidence in the public record that backs the charge that Hamdi is an enemy combatant is far stronger than it it is in the Padilla case.

Secondly, I care nothing for either Padilla or Hamdi. Both are probably very guilty, evil men, who would no doubt spend far less time worrying about my rights, than I do about theirs. On the other hand, the actual degree of guilt, or quality of character, of either of these individuals is not the issue that concerns me. Principles and precedents are the strategic issues here.

You may be perfectly happy with a situation where the government can indefinitely detain without trial anyone it designates as an "enemy combatant," provided it can provide a court with "some evidence" to back that allegation. I am not.

I am no more happy about capturing renegade Americans than I am happy to have them killed though I prefer either to letting them kill innocent loyal Americans.
Nothing about war makes me happy. It is at best neccessary.

I am happy that in my country this power was authorized against these two by the legislature and not solely by the executive- as the courts pointed out in both of these cases.
The Founders were wise to insist on limiting the Presidents' war powers.

The legislature should reconsider affording some of the Constitution's criminal protections to some detained renegades- in addition to their Habeas Corpus rights.
But it's difficult to write laws to cover "illegal citizen combatants" ("every case is different").
There was an attempt in congress last year, but it was abandoned. Perhaps after these cases they'll have a better idea of what should be considered.

One thing I think should be addressed by the congress: it seems there might not presently be a means to guarantee that detainees can petition for a habeas corpus hearing. Though these two got theirs, that seemed to happen by circumstance which is no way to treat "the great writ".