Does anybody think Lynn Stewart was a solo act?

We already know–see Haditha–that the enemy, by which I mean the media, along with terrorist propagandists posing as journalists, are attempting to hamstring our military operations by promoting major scandals about non-existent crimes.

This is more of the same.

“The majority in this case made it quite explicit their determination did NOT apply to foreign battlefields.”

A: Yes Sen Obama, I know. But we are not talking about battlefields. We are talking about places under American ‘control’… like bases in Cuba… what about things like bases…elsewhere?

B: Since they can shred the constitution to include places, at will, in this instance… why can they not do so again next time it comes up? That one is on the clear side too… There is no reason.

Let us search to understand each other at the points where we disagree:

1. Slippery Slope

It was nice of Justice Kennedy to assure us the slippery slope is not to be feared. Justice Scalia disagrees:

[I] conclude that the Court’s ultimate, unexpressed goal is to preserve the power to review the confinement of enemy prisoners held by the Executive anywhere in the world. The “functional” test … is so inherently subjective that it clears a wide path for the Court to traverse in years to come.

2. Reasonable limit on the extent of Executive Power

Chief Justice Roberts believes the majority wishes to limit Executive Power b/c they misunderstand that CSRT(Combatant Status Review Tribunal) has power to review habeus rights and to release defendants. Roberts alleges the majority’s ruling turns on the (ack, I can’t believe I’m going to say it)straw man propped up by the majority’s lack of understanding.

[The majority's] comment makes sense only if the CSRTs are incorrectly viewed as a method used by the Executive for determining the prisoner’s status, and not as themselves part of the collateral review to test the validity of that determination.[...] The majority can deprecate the importance of CSRTs only by treating them as something they are not.

Mitsu, I do not understand your comment that the Executive cannot act as if the entire country is a battlefield indefinitely. I don’t know what domestic U.S. citizen’s rights have to do with this case, if that is what you are referring to.

Finally, I am all for limits on both Executive power and Judicial power.

The majority in this case made it quite explicit their determination did NOT apply to foreign battlefields.

Not yet. A preview of coming attractions.

Thirty years ago that those opposing decriminalization of sodomy said doing so was to proceed down slippery slope of mainstreaming homosexuality that would eventually lead to homosexual marriages. Those supporting decriminalization pooh-poohed that argument as ridiculous.

And yet, here we are.

(By the way, for clarification: I am male, not that this ought to matter).

Mitsu, I don’t understand your repeated complaint about habeus corpus for U.S. citizens prior to Hamdan. What do you want from us?

I haven’t studied Hamdan enough to fully know if I agree with it, but: no one here is complaining about Hamdan. I’m not complaining about it. On the contrary: we are complaining that this SC majority overturned Hamdan 1) only two years after deciding it, AND 2) after both the Executive and the Legislative went to great lengths to forge legsislation which complied with Hamdan. THAT overturn of their own ruling is crazy SC instability which will undermine our nation just as easily as anything else.

“First of all, this decision doesn’t apply whatsoever to enemy combatants captured by the military and held on foreign soil. It refers only to those held at Guantanamo Bay or on American soil.”

Ding ding ding… to get Guantanamo in the mix they so expanded the definition of ‘American soil’ as to include anywhere we are in control… so.., no. Your mistaken.

“Those of you complaining about this decision have completely missed the point.”

Actually, that’s not what this decision was about and you completely missed the point.