Govt. atty argues to U.S.S.Ct. that military doesn't want to hold detainee

[TexasSissy]

I have listened to parts of the arguments made in the three cases made in recent months to the U.S. Ct. The Hamdi case, the Padilla case, and those other two cases that were consolidated.

I was re-listening to part of the government counsel's argument to the S.Ct. a couple of nights ago (I think it was the Hamdi case? And then also part of the consolidated case.)

When I heard this argument the first time, a couple or three months ago, that was before Abu Ghraib. What a difference it made to reconsider the arguments after Abu Ghraib.

Several of the Justices were qrilling the govt's counsel on the possibility that the government could just pick someone up and detain him, without process or a hearing or even the benefit of counsel, for an indefinite period of time, and additionally, could treat him any way they see fit, w/o his having any way to appeal to a neutral authority for assistance. The government's counsel's made a number of arguments, and then said something like, "Look, the military and the government have no interest in detaining someone that isn't a threat. They just won't do it. And as far as mistreatment, they have no interest in such a thing, and besides it's not beneficial. If you mistreat a prisoner, you might get some information, but that information would be dubious in reliability, at best, so that's just not a concern. They wouldn't do that."

And then Abu Ghraib happened. I hadn't thought of it before, but that had to make parts of the government's argument sound hollow, when the Justices went into conference to consider the case.

What a difference a couple of months can make. I wonder what the Justices decision would have been, if Abu Ghraib hadn't happened. Would they have decided the same way? That the detainee has a right to counsel and to court access.