Well, I’m sure they could have pressed the case in Quirin, but since they were caught red-handed it wouldn’t have mattered much.
The case makes reference to admitted facts, so I’m sure they weren’t worrying about the government proving the allegation, which they could easily do. They were trying to win the case on other grounds.
You know the old expression, if your case is weak on the facts, argue the law. If weak on the law, argue the facts. In this case, they were clearly weak on the facts.
It isn’t a tu quoque. It is case law that still has force. And I think you ought to take that into account in your arguments.
Guys, any New Yorker knows Rudy wants that power. It’s what he does. He’d be a kickass AG, but a very very bad President.
A good point. Also worth noting that the right for people held as illegal combatants to challenge their detention (or one figures one of these days, execution) before a neuteral party (i.e., a court) has been upheld in Hamdi and, in Hamdan, even in the case of non-US citizens.
Hamdi was released. Anyone know what the status of Hamdan is? Last I heard congress had passed a law creating a military tribunal to try and meet the Supreme’s requirement of review which, I assume, was challenged by Hamdan’s lawyers? Is that making its way to the Supreme Court now?
Yeah… when I read BrainGlutton’s comment I didn’t know whether to laugh or scream.
Scream. He’s right.
This is true. We eliminate the court system and let one person decide who goes to prison. The result? We’ve made the government smaller and more efficient.