Supreme Court decides U.S. Constitution applies at Guantánamo

From the NYT, Thursday's Supreme Court decision regarding the detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba

...granted detainees the right to challenge their detention in civilian courts, meaning that federal judges will now have the power to check the government’s claims that the 270 men still held there are dangerous terrorists.

[...]

Detainees’ lawyers have long claimed that the government will not be able to justify the detention of many of the men. Pentagon officials, on the other hand, have maintained that classified evidence establishes that many of them are dangerous. The federal courts will now have the power to sort through those claims.

And regarding Habeas Corpus (a means of seeking relief from unlawful detention, such as that a prisoner must be charged with a specific crime or released, a prisoner's right to an attorney and the right to present evidence of innocence):

The question of whether detainees have habeas rights has long been a central issue in the battle over Guantánamo. Scores of such cases had been in the courts before Congress sought to strip federal judges of the power to hear them. Habeas suits by virtually all the 270 detainees are now expected to commence or be revived, lawyers said.

Such cases give federal judges broad powers to review the government’s reasons for holding a prisoner. But once a judge is satisfied that there is a legitimate basis, a case can end quickly with a ruling in the government’s favor.

“Habeas is not a ‘get out of jail free’ card,” said Jonathan Hafetz, a detainees’ lawyer at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. “It just provides a fair, legitimate and independent sorting process to determine who should and who should not be held.”

Update: McCain and Obama Split on Justices’ Guantánamo Ruling

McCain: "...it obviously concerns me. These are unlawful combatants; they’re not American citizens."

Obama: "This is an important step toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus."

No surprise here

Regarding the Justice Department's report released yesterday that states FBI agents repeatedly complained about interrogation techniques used in Guantánamo Bay:

From the Washington Post

Nearly half of the 450 FBI agents who worked at Guantanamo reported that they had observed or heard about military interrogators using a variety of harsh interrogation techniques on detainees, with the most common being sleep deprivation and short-shackling -- or locking a detainee's hands and feet together to prevent comfortable sitting or standing -- for long periods of time.

Military officials at Guantanamo Bay used some aggressive techniques before they were approved, possibly in violation of Defense Department policy and U.S. law, the report said. They also continued to use "stress positions" and other such techniques well after they were prohibited by Defense Department policy in January 2003, the report said.

and from the NYT

FBI agents at the base created a “war crimes file” to document accusations against American military personnel, but were eventually ordered to close down the file, a Justice Department report revealed Tuesday.

[...]

Many of the abuses the report describes have previously been disclosed, but it was not known that F.B.I. agents had gone so far as to document accusations of abuse in a “war crimes file” at Guantánamo...Sometime in 2003, however, an F.B.I. official ordered the file closed because “investigating detainee allegations of abuse was not the F.B.I.’s mission,” the report said.

And as a conclusionary measure, in one of her best articles on the CIA interrogation tapes "The Harm Initiative: How We Got Hoodwinked Into Tolerating Abusive Interrogations", from Dahlia Lithwick a few months ago

John Yoo and Steven Bradbury [from the Office of Legal Counsel at the DoJ] think that an interrogation method is torture only if it produces irrevocable damage. But long after the torture tapes are forgotten, what may be irrevocably damaged is our capacity for outrage.

Justice Hillary?

Interesting op-ed piece in today's Washington Post. James Miller proposes that Obama promise Hillary a Supreme Court appointment if a current Justice were to retire during his presidency.

If Obama were to promise Clinton the first court vacancy, her supporters would actually have a stronger incentive to support him for president than they would if she were going to be vice president. Given the Supreme Court's delicate liberal-conservative balance, she would play a major role in charting the country's future; there is no guarantee that a Clinton vice presidency would achieve such importance.

Clinton, I like your style

This suit of Hillary's really struck me:

The woman looks beautiful in cantaloupe! She must know it too...

Not a fan of the jacket, but again, the color....

Same beads as in the first photo. Work those accessories, girl.

Even with the goofy expression, I still think she looks great. Ladies: don't be ashamed of having a monochromatic closet. Wear what works.

My brother backs Obama in '08

At ten years old, my brother loves to pretend he is worldy and informed. A little while back, for example, he slept over at a friend's and tossed into conversation that day, "blah blah blah with my coffee this morning."

He told me this weekend that he hates Republicans and Hillary Clinton, and rah-rahhed everytime Obama's picture appeared on the program I was watching. I asked him which of Obama's stances he most supported. I received a quizzical look, but later he quipped, "He's a good speaker."

Ah.

Seriously?

Hillary on ABC's "This Week" (via The Caucus):

I’m not going to put in my lot with economists...Elite opinion is always on the side of doing things that really disadvantages the vast majority of Americans.

Ouch. Not only has she recklessly proposed repealing the $0.18 gas tax to "relieve" millions of Americans (I'm sure...who's to say the consumer will reap this short term benefit?), she is flat-out acknowledging that economists think this is a terrible idea. Good move.

Unfortunately it probably will be for her as she is telling low-income voters exactly what they want to hear, condoning their short-sightedness on the issue.