This is disgusting, humiliating and embarassing.

Obama, like Alvin Greene, is a Republican plant.

I don't trust Kagen to replace Kennedy at all.

Will this writ actually get Odaini out of Guantanamo, or can Obama/Holder wiggle out of it?

Oh hell. I saw Kennedy and thought he wrote an opinion for the SC majority. This is just a Federal judge. If they play it like Bush, they can drag this on for quite some time.

It's a step forward. But I'll bet quite a lot Obama will appeal. It's bad politics to release the kid, so law be damned ... we're going to hold him.

I am sick and tired of being afraid of the frickin right.

damn

get a spine Mr. President

Obama has no clue at all. This nation took hit after hit under Bush and the exact same thing is continuing under Obama. Zero change. And when faced with an emergency Obama has no idea of what he is supposed to do. None. The only person who can take control of and mobilize the US merchant fleet and get as many ships as it takes into the gulf and suck up the oil which is destroying an entire ecosystem, has stood by and watched. Obama wouldn't know what an emergency was if it bit him in the ass. He knows the law. BFD. When has the law ever served us very well? The law has Obama in handcuffs and leg irons and he hasn't the slightest idea that as president, he has an alternative, an obligation in fact, to not be taken prisoner. What a dumb ass.

Not really an answer, however, there are other statutes you could cite. A nation that actually lives up to its ideals would apply the Geneva Conventions in cases like this.

Gotta agree wholeheartedly, if a little less heatedly, with this assessment. We knew it had to happen one day.

There is simply no excuse for these policies and the ones that led to the gulf to have been immediately changed on January 20, 2009.

Thanks for shedding some light on this one.

Actually kgb, war isn't even specifically mentioned so simply being at war isn't enough and we are not at war as no declaration of war has been declared by the US Congress since December 1941.

There are but two very specific circumstances that are excepted from the law and they are insurrection (of which we have none and haven't had since the 1860's) and invasion (something that hasn't occured since the War of 1812).

There is nothing in the Constitution that is more clear, more straightforward, or more plainly stated than the provision we are discussing. Two exceptions and only two exceptions are granted by the Constitution and you don't need to be a lawyer or even a scholar to understand it.

The guy got a review of the lawfulness of his detention an Article III Court. That's what the right of Habeas Corpus is.

I'm not seeing anywhere in the opinion where it indicates that the government argued that the petitioner wasn't entitled to Habeas review of his detention. On the contrary, it appears the government conceded he was entitled to Habeas review, argued the merits and lost.

It's wrong how long it took him to get that review. It's wrong that he was held for eight years without cause in the first place. It's wrong that the Bush Administration dragged it out for years by fighting against Habeas review by real courts. And I'm not going to defend Obama's suspension of transfers of detainees to Yeman who were cleared by the Article I tribunal in Gitmo. There's an argument that it was prudent in light of the Underpants Bomber, but it stinks of domestic political motivation.

But the fact is that he got Habeas review under Obama where he got none under Bush. And if you're going to attack, you ought to know at least as much about what you're attacking about as you can gather from reading up on the topic in Wikipedia.

Now go ahead and call me an Obot. That way you don't have to actually respond to the substance of anything I said.

But Oleeb, you are forgetting that once we pick them up and put them in Gitmo (and they mix in with the terrorist evildoers) we can't trust them to be free any more because they get radicalized.

Jebuz. WTF? I can't get my comments to go where I want 'em these days. This is to Oleeb's comment waaaaay upthread.

Damn.

Great post. Thanks for your insight....it helped to put everything in a little bit of context.

Oh, and I forgot to add, the hearings were ordered to take place during the Bush administration so Obama did nobody any favors here (least of all the Constitution) and the Obama administration's position was IDENTICAL to Bush's in this case. So your object of worship is fully responsible for the illegal and completely unjustified incarceration of this man. With the total lack of evidence they had, the government should have released him before he was ever delivered to Cuba and Obama could and should have freed him upon review of the completely nonexistent evidence.

You are incorrect.

Most of the people detained by our government were not charged for years. Obama has not changed the government position on prosecuting or holding any of them. His tweaking of the Bush policies is only to give the illegitimate actions fo the government the aura of legality. Nothing Obama has done has demonstrably rejected the illegal and unjustified practices put in place suring the Bush regime and carried on by Obama.

Most of those given a hearing thus far have been ordered freed. It stands to reason that most of those still being detained are being held illegally as well and upon no evidence at all as in this case and many others. Political developments are no excuse to ignore the law. This decision only makes clearer how outrageous and unjustified the incarceration many of these people has been.

Obama pays lip service to the Constitution just as Bush and his henchmen did. There is no war declared so the idea that they get to declare anyone anywhere and at anytime an enemy combatant is simply an excuse for despotic and illegal use of the power of the United States no matter who the victims of that power happen to be. If they want to declare war then they can do so, but you can't declare war on an organization. You can only declare war on another state. The idea that declaring a worldwide turkey shoot on the tiny number of people banded together in opposition to American foreign policies and the impact they have in their countries is outrageous and illegal. It is not the job of the United States government or military to be the muscle for forcing US corporate hegemony around the globe. That is what the fictional war on terror is about. It has nothing to do with protecting the US. It has everything to do with maintaining imperial dominance in the world.

All the legal bullshit and dancing around the fact that there is no legal authority for their abuse and mistreatement of foreign nationals around the globe is just that: bullshit. Obama has agreed with the Bush line 100% since assuming office and the Bush/Obama line is illegal and tramples our legal and military traditions for no good reason. The primary reason for adopting all of these illegal measures was simply because they didn't want to have to bother with nuisances like evidence or having actual cause to arrest and detain people. The detentions whether at Bagram or Guantanamo are illegal. You cannot simply seize people you suspect (with little or no evidence) might someday do something to harm you. Those are the actions of paranoid tyrants.

Why are there terrorists throughout the Islamic world threatening to do something to America? Might have something to do with our political and military interventions in their nations. Maybe, just maybe that has something to do with it. The Pentagon itself has demonstrated in its own studies that our military presence is breeding more terrorists. If a foreign power came here and killed your family would you not hate them and want revenge? Of course you would, unless you were not really human. In more cases than not it has been revealed that the supposed dangerous Al Qaeda members the government has been keeping so securly locked up are innocent victims of our government's rage and paranoia that have manifested themselves in a whole host of illegal activities.

But it never says anywhere that habeus corpus should apply to terrorists who ignore the rules of war.

How do they ignore the "rules of war" anymore than the United States? War has no rules, despite the patina of civilization we try to put on it. The only rules that apply are our humanity as a people which has been sorely lacking of late.

"foreigners that we believe to be terrorists?" This isn't something like pornography that we know it when we see it -- there's this little matter of evidence and proof.

As a matter of how law is construed -- when one thing is except and others aren't mentioned, they are considered to be included. Since this provision of the Constitution that the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it -- Habeas Corpus cannot be suspended unless thee is either a case of Rebellion or Invasion AND the public safety requires it.

Note that this does not automatically free the person you are presuming is a terrorist, it just makes the government present its evidence that the individual has done something wrong. If he hasn't done anything wrong yet, well, last I checked we weren't punishing thought crimes here in America.

You're free to advocate for changing this provision of the Constitution if you feel it no longer meets the demands of the time but this is what the Founders intended it to mean. Don't tell me you are arguing for a Living Constitution?

Terrorists who want to attack our country do not have rights under our Constitution.

Yes, that's exactly what you are and you never cease to amaze in the stupidity and ignorance you demonstrate in your many inane and bogus comments. For example, your inability to grasp the point of the original post.

Only make comments to be a pest? Hardly. I make comments when idiots like you claim something to be so clearly unconstitutional and black & white when it's not.