![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Devil and the law....
Adventus has a really good post about the law, and the protection it affords us. It's a nice accompaniment to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
pecunium's post from a while back about habeas corpus.
At the end, RMJ points out "The Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that Guantanamo detainees are entitled to hearings. In 2006, those same detainees are still on hunger strikes to protest their incarceration, and are being treated in brutal and inhumane ways, in violation of international law as well as U.S. law. And yet that treatment continues."
This is true -- every time the SCOTUS has told the Administration the have to do something, they have stonewalled, and gone back to court to argue over what it really means, anything rather than provide hearings for these people. And I'm beginning to wonder...
What do we do if, when the cases finally reach the SCOTUS the second time around, and the court unequivocally says you have to provide hearings and these are what they are to look like and this is when they have to happen... what if the Administration flat out refuses?
Of course, by virtue of stonewalling, they will have waited until they could change the composition of the court, so it probably won't happen. That's why Alito matters so much: O'Connor wrote the majority in Hamdan which required the Administration to provide the detainees with due process.
But still, what happens when they finally push things too far, and the Court stands up and says, "No more"? What then?
pecunium's post from a while back about habeas corpus.At the end, RMJ points out "The Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that Guantanamo detainees are entitled to hearings. In 2006, those same detainees are still on hunger strikes to protest their incarceration, and are being treated in brutal and inhumane ways, in violation of international law as well as U.S. law. And yet that treatment continues."
This is true -- every time the SCOTUS has told the Administration the have to do something, they have stonewalled, and gone back to court to argue over what it really means, anything rather than provide hearings for these people. And I'm beginning to wonder...
What do we do if, when the cases finally reach the SCOTUS the second time around, and the court unequivocally says you have to provide hearings and these are what they are to look like and this is when they have to happen... what if the Administration flat out refuses?
Of course, by virtue of stonewalling, they will have waited until they could change the composition of the court, so it probably won't happen. That's why Alito matters so much: O'Connor wrote the majority in Hamdan which required the Administration to provide the detainees with due process.
But still, what happens when they finally push things too far, and the Court stands up and says, "No more"? What then?