On Monday it was announced that the DC Circuit Court has issued
an opinion in Parhat v. Gates, its first appeal from the
Combatant Status Review Tribunal under the system established under
the Military Commissions Act and the Detainee Treatment Act. The
Circuit Court ruled for the petitioner, a Guantanamo
detainee:
The court directed the government to release or to
transfer Parhat, or to expeditiously hold a new Tribunal consistent
with the court's opinion. The court also stated that its
disposition was without prejudice to Parhat's right to seek release
immediately through a writ of habeas corpus in the district court,
pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Boumediene v.
Bush, No. 06-1195, slip op. at 65-66 (U.S. June 12, 2008).
Because the opinion contains classified information and information
that the government had initially submitted for treatment under
seal, a redacted version for public release is in
preparation.
The
New York Times editorial board, ever oblivious, thinks
this is "
Another Rebuke on Guantanamo," part of "a long
line of court rulings" against the Bush administration on
Guantanamo, and an affirmation of
Boumediene. But isn't it
clearly just the opposite? The
Boumediene majority
suggested that the MCA/DTA system couldn't possibly be fair to
detainees, and only direct access to the civilian courts for
Guantanamo Bay detainees could pass constitutional muster. Yet here
we have the DC Circuit Court ruling in favor of a detainee, and
apparently demanding some sort of change in the CSRT procedure,
within the framework that Congress has laid out, all while keeping
classified information under wraps. Seems like they have things
under control, at least if we're concerned about balancing liberty
and security. If we're concerned with
giving judges as much policy-making power as possible,
on the other hand,
Boumediene makes perfect sense.
topics:
Constitution, Supreme Court, Military
