• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Fanciful or Not, Court Gives Spying Suit Second Chance | Main | Holder Names Pick to Lead Guantanamo Task Force »

February 20, 2009


Nuno Rogeiro

There was a crucial mistake made by the detainee's lawyers, in trying to prove that the US has the same de facto control of Bagram as it has over Gitmo: they stated the Afghan base houses a civilian-type city, where families of the serving military reside.
This is not true. Although Bagram is heavily fortified and insulated, it still sits in a combat area, not suitable for the normal civilian life you see in Guantanamo, with schools for kids and malls for moms.

Nuno Rogeiro


do the republicans control the courts?

Rupie Johns

Way to go Obama, you go dude!


Akshay B

Paragraph 8:
"The Court also recognized that the United Stated exercised de facto sovereignty over the base, placing Guantánamo within its jurisdiction."

United States typo
just helping out :)

Thomas W. Muther, Jr.

That the U.S. STILL claims the right to violate the most basic human rights of individuals--in many cases simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time--is deeply disturbing. I had hoped that the nightmare represented by the past administration might be over, but alas, injustice, once having taken root, is often as hard to expunge as a case of Herpes. It would now seem that the hopes of many--that an Obama Administration would usher in a new era of respect for Law and Principle, and utterly repudiate the human rights abuses of Bush/Cheney--were misplaced. We'll have to settle for mitigation.

Let's face it. Bush/Cheney revealed a hard truth: that the "Rule of Law" was a myth. We are in fact subservient not to Law, but to Executive Comity. It is the president who decides just how closely we follow the Constitution, or how closely we will live up to our legal commitment to human rights as codified in treaty. Obama has chosen to reverse some of Bush's decisions, but he does this at his discretion. And the next president, again at his or her discretion, may decide to implement measures even more draconian than those of Bush. What is there to stop him? Without a great repudiation of the unlawful actions of the previous administration (including legal consequences), the Constitution is relegated to an advisory document. And we are left to keep our fingers crossed that each succeeding president will choose to follow its dictates.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad