Gitmo Argument Resources and Commentary
The oral argument transcript in the Gitmo cases is here.
The audio is here.
I’m listening to it now.
Jan Crawford Greenburg has a post about Gitmo, which she recently visited. She also has a raft of commenters who have completely misconstrued what she said, which is always fun. Her post is about Gitmo itself and not about today’s argument; I’m looking forward to more from her on the argument itself. [UPDATE: Here we go. And she has a video report here.]
Meanwhile, if you’re looking for an entertaining liberal perspective on the argument, Dahlia Lithwick’s take is here.
Remind me to never hire Dahlia Lithwick for anything important. She is clearly immune to legal arugments.
But, given that she is a Stanford law grad, I can understand how she came by that malady.
wls (6c5569) — 12/6/2007 @ 7:56 amIt’s a tough issue for the Court, and for the country. On the one hand, Congress has provided that the Circuit Court has some jurisdiction and MUST be involved, but on the other hand, that jurisdiction is to defer all fact finding.
cboldt (3d73dd) — 12/6/2007 @ 10:13 am.
I am sympathetic to the plight of an innocent detainee — that is, one who was swept up in error. But, it may be that there is no place in that tragedy, for any court of law to assert a remedy.
.
Likewise, if a person in the US military kills a perfectly peaceful and innocent victim, far from any theater of war (whether pursuant to an order, or as a “criminal” act), there is no place for a civilian court to find the action was unjust, unfair, or wrong. The issue is settled by a duty on the military to self-police, i.e., Courts Martial. There is no recourse if the self-policing duty is breached.
.
In that light, Waxman’s anecdote about the unfair process is merely interesting, and has no persuasive value. For even if the CSRT and Military Commissions are designed to be, and are operated as a kangaroo court, it’s not the Supreme Court’s problem to fix, or even criticize.
Hmmm if the court has jurisdiction over the conduct of military personnel during times of warand our jurdicial system and rules apply when do the murder trial of servicemen begin. Doesn’t the firebombing of Dresden lend itself to this prosecution or all thoese troops at Normandy who killed those Germans? How about the US submariners who straved the Japanese at the end of the war?
Does this mean that future property owners whoe premises are damaged by falling bombs bow can sue in US courst?
Exactly where does the constitution grant the courts jurisdiction over the military. As far as I have seen it allows US courts to rule on issues within the jurisdiction and authority of the US (States and territories) and certainly not over foreign military bases or areas that are under occupation.
Thomas Jackson (bf83e0) — 12/6/2007 @ 10:46 amif the court has jurisdiction over the conduct of military personnel during times of warand our jurdicial system and rules apply when do the murder trial of servicemen begin
It will be odd otherwise, won’t it? Enemy soldiers/detainees will apparently have a constitutional right to access civilian courts re their detention but US military personnel will have to appeal their detention with military tribunals.
Apparently, military trials are good enough for US soldiers but not good enough for enemy soldiers.
Crazy.
And let’s not kid ourselves: once habeas is given, the whole nine yards of rights will be required next. Appeals, discovery, et cetera.
(Unless – and I’m agnostic on this – US soldiers have the right to appeal their detention in civilian courts?)
SteveMG (28e182) — 12/6/2007 @ 11:28 am