Guantanamo Cases Can Go Forward:
The DC Circuit has issued its ruling in the Hamdan case about military tribunals at Gitmo. My very quick skim of the opinion suggests the use of several alternative rationales for the holding, which would seem to make Supreme Court review less likely. But I'll need to take a closer look later today to offer anything more concrete.
JohnO (mail):
If you were, hypothetically, a lawyer with a case before Judge Robertson (the trial judge in Hamdan) where that case included claims that your client is liable for alleged violations of the Geneva Convention, this would be a pretty good opinion.
7.15.2005 3:26pm
Donald (www):
Why less likely review given alternative holdings? Is it because the outcome is less likely to be altered (given that at least one of the holdings must be sound) or is it instead an institutional preference on the Court's part that each of its decisions stand primarily for one proposition of law, rather than several related ones?
7.15.2005 3:40pm
cfw (mail):
Go forward meaning what? Seems like Presidnet should step in and become more proactive about providing lawyers, access to witnesses, procedures more akin to courts-martial procedurtes while he has a good window of opportunity.
7.15.2005 7:38pm
CharleyCarp (mail):
Even if the SC doesn't take the case or just the Third Common Article question on which the panel split 2-1, the GC issue will come up again out of Khaled/Boumediene. The jurisdictional holding in Hamdan doesn't apply to K/B, because the GC questions are raised in a different form.

IMO, Judge Randolph is a great judge, and by rights ought to be one of the folks talked about for the SC. That said, I don't think the substanctial holdings of his Hamdan opinion will fare any better than his Al-Odah opinion did . . .
7.16.2005 1:09am