Back to Business

Dearest A,

We've both been busy as of late, due to our jobs in the non-digital world. Good thing no one reads our blog! But there's been a lot of law made over the last few months. Most notably, a certain case involving certain people held against their will at a certain tropical location. And I ain't talking about Temptation Island.

There's been a lot of ink spilled about Guantanamo already, and I don't want to rehash old legal arguments. But there's one little tidbit that truly interests me -- Justice Scalia's statement that the decision "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

First off, that's not true as a legal matter. The decision did not set all the detainees at Guantanamo free. It simply gave federal judges the ability to take a peek at the basis for the detention of these men. And I'm pretty darned sure that no federal judge is going to be sending KSM back to Afghanistan anytime soon.

Regardless, the DoD has been doing a pretty darned good job of letting dangerous detainees go without any help from the courts.

But my main point is this -- who the hell was Scalia writing that line for? Certainly not as precedent for future legal briefs since, as I noted above, it's not legally valid and, as far as legal opinions go, borders on the histrionic.

It was clearly meant for the Rush Limbaugh types, the red-staters who hear that line on TV and grin in agreement.

Is that the proper audience for a dissenting opinion? We've got the Executive and Legislative branches already crawling all over each other to win political points. Is there some reason why the Judiciary shouldn't be doing the same? My gut tells me no, but I can't think of any coherent reason why not.

Love,
Sammy