Rachel Maddow and boingboing’s overreaction
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/05/22/obama-promises-to-su.html
I must admit that I had a hard time sitting through the whole thing; what helped me most was not watching the tape constantly because it only adds to the lack of consideration for the opposing viewpoint. Pres. Obama in his speech did not really explain the legal justification for such prolonged detention, and that was probably a mistake, but my first hunch is that it’s perfectly constitutional, and in fact generous under the laws of war.
Habeas corpus is a writ requiring an end to unlawful detention. But the laws of war, at least as I understand them, allow detention until the end of hostilities. The laws of war were not created for conflicts as long in duration as those against terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda, and it seems inhumane as a result to leave the determination to one of POW status at the beginning of captivity. The legal framework Pres. Obama suggests creating, and which Rachel Maddow scoffs at as horribly illegal, is actually more than what the law requires.
Without any further research into habeas or the Geneva Conventions, that’s my current understanding of the legal framework. I believe I read a Scalia opinion (not usually my favorite authority on these things, but he’s the one who said it) endorsing detention until the cessation of hostilities, but I can’t find it at the moment. If this initial reaction of mine is wrong, I’d love to hear why.