Comments on: Consequentialism on the Supreme Court

By: Zippy

Zippy — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:02:20 +0000

I think MZ Forrest’s comment is most on point. It seems like the reason there is a bizarre legal puzzle in the first place is because the Bush Administration made up a new legal category of non-person for its own purposes. Perhaps a better Supreme Court decision would have been “BS, classify them all right now as either POW’s or criminals, and then follow existing law”.

By: jh

jh — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:20:53 +0000

Morning

Just to clarify it isnot a dissent’s viewpoint to get people unjustly imprisioned. The whole point they are making and especially ROberts is that the procedures that just passed could have been an adequate safeguard and indeed subistiute for Habeus Corpus.

By: jh

jh — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:18:31 +0000

SB ,

I think Prof Garret is right on. Too many people have jumped on this OPinion without reading it and in fact knowing what the issues were.

As ROberts points out the majority did not even go into detail what rights these folks have. In my view it is quite possible that the people detained willbe worse off not better under this decision. However likely the new procedures as to the prisioners I suspect will look a lot like the legislation that was in place.

By: M.Z. Forrest

M.Z. Forrest — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:36:58 +0000

The men held at Gitmo are not Prisoners of War according to the U.S. If they were POWs habeaus corpus wouldn’t be an issue, because the reason they were being held would be known, i.e. they are prisoners of war. The problem, like so many, is that the Administration does not want to use existing classifications and has created a new classification ex nihilo, illegal enemy combatant. Other countries that have experienced terrorism don’t do this. England and France both use the legal system to address terrorism, each allowing considerable lengths of detention before charges are filed.

By: Zak

Zak — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:31:06 +0000

Prisoners of war aren’t granted habeus corpus. To my mind, no one has ever thought that necessary. If you capture someone on a battlefield when they were fighting against you, they seem to me to be a prisoner of war. You are entitled to hold them until the end of combat, and they are entitled to fair treatment. Coercive interogation tactics (including, but not limited to any kind of torture) are prohibited. It seems to me that many of our prisoners (those in Gitmo, Bagram, etc.) meet this description. They should not be tried. Others (like KSM), it seems, are guilty of crimes against humanity, and should be tried for those crimes, in normal courts, under habeus corpus. I think the entire idea that existing juridical practices cannot provide guidance in the war on terror is very problematic. The Bush administration has erred in judgment and committed some great injustices. It would be helpful to hear someone propose an alternative strategy that allows us to adhere to moral norms and provide security, but I don’t think I have. Most people who oppose Gitmo seem to me to have bought into the Bush administration’s argument that treating detainees as POWs (except for those who have committed clear terrorist crimes) is not feasible, but I don’t know why. The Bush administration is far worse, clearly (let’s imprison people, not give them any form of redress, release some of them in a seemingly arbitrary fashion, and say we will hold the others in perpetuity on the basis of trials that don’t meet minimal standards of justice), with a strategy that is unjust and damaging to America’s standing while also not protecting us well. What is the alternative solution that Biden/Obama et al. are offering? What about McCain. I’d like to hear more of a plan of future policy, and less on the constitutionality of current policy (especially when its constitutionality seems to depend, to most of those in the debate, not on specific statutes but on moral issues like prudence and justice or practical issues like security). Let’s take those concerns and apply them in creating a new way.

By: Henry Karlson

Henry Karlson — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:25:27 +0000

Kyle

Exactly. That’s my point. Even the United States was founded upon that principle: that there are human rights which trump nation-states. The nation-state will always find just cause for its ignoring of basic rights (England did, and it wasn’t entirely for bad reasons — taxation in the colonies was not that high, and was in part to help keep the colonies running and defended from outside threats). However, there was a sense that — no matter how just the end might be, not all means are valid, and a state loses authority when it acts against inalienable rights. And one can say the United States has done so on many occasions, not just here (abortion and slavery being two other prime examples).

This does not mean, however, that one needs to destroy the state via revolution, but one needs to point out that when a state acts against inalienable rights, its declarations in such situations are null and void. So I think the basis of the US in its inception provides sufficient cause to rule as the majority did.

By: Kyle R. Cupp

Kyle R. Cupp — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:53:38 +0000

I hear a lot of talk on the radio about granting others “Constitutional rights,” but not much talk acknowledging human rights.

By: Will McCain Get the Chance to Bomb Iran? « Vox Nova

Will McCain Get the Chance to Bomb Iran? « Vox Nova — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:23:00 +0000

[...] McCain Get the Chance to Bomb Iran? In yesterday’s post on the Boumediene decision, there was a bit of a side discussion on the likelihood of McCain’s bombing Iran. It seems to [...]

By: Will McCain Get the Chance to Bomb Iran? « Blackadder’s Lair

Will McCain Get the Chance to Bomb Iran? « Blackadder’s Lair — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:50:34 +0000

[...] Get the Chance to Bomb Iran? There was an interesting discussion yesterday in the comments to this post, at Vox-Nova on the likelihood of McCain’s bombing Iran. It seems to me, though, that we may [...]

By: jpf

jpf — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:57:01 +0000

Cranky:

Scalia deconstructed Kennedy’s legal reasoning with even worse legal reasoning. My favorite part was found in Scalia’s first paragraph.

“America is at war with radical Islamists. . . . one need only walk about buttressed and barricaded Washington, or board a plane anywhere in the country, to know that the threat is a serious one. “

How can one argue with that reasoning? Obviously looking at the necessity for secret police and gulags in the Soviet Union there was a real threat from reactionaries and Kulaks. And, of course, the existence of the SS and concentration camps in Nazi Germany demonstrated the real threat posed by the Jewish menace.

Did he acquire these fine reasoning skills from the Jesuits at Georgetown or at Harvard Law?

By: Morning's Minion

Morning's Minion — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:33:05 +0000

It was a legal decision, yes, but it was also a moral decision.

By: Morning's Minion

Morning's Minion — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:32:06 +0000

Well, let me know when the Irish army picks up some random Aghfan herdsmen and imprisons them, in perpetuity, on the Skellig islands.