ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û

Just wanted to highlight this comment to an earlier post. It gets right to one of the key legal distinctions between post-9/11 detention policy and the supposed "historical precedent" constantly cited by all the president's men (and women).Remember, Gitmo is a totally unique monster; it's an American base, under complete American control, with American infrastructure and American electricity and American latrines. It's only nominally under lease from Cuba; both countries have to agree to break it, which ain't going to happen under the Castro regime.Anyway, here's the comment. Thanks for reading.

Both the majority’s and dissent’s originalist inquiries into the common law writ of habeas corpus in Boumediene v. Bush (D.C. Cir. February 20, 2007) imply to me that a right to petition for the writ should apply, as a constitutional matter, to an alien detainee held abroad where it would be reasonably convenient to bring the detainee before the district court. Even the holding of Johnson v. Eisentrager appears to rely in part on the inconvenience of transporting the detainees from Germany to the U.S. while World War II was raging. This isn’t the situation we’re faced with at Gitmo.