But, but, but... Scalia is McCain's IDEAL Justice...!  I mean, sure he's praised Roberts and Alito and Thomas (all dissented on today's ruling) but he LOVES Scalia....

How many reasons do we need NOT to elect McCain...?

What case law was cited in support of the detainees besides Hamdan?

Pardon my French but isn't it J'Accusse?

He's a hack, Scalia

I've long thought Scalia was a bit nutty but this was astounding. It wasn't a judicial redering it was political demagoguery. To be honest I was surprised by Roberts and Alito. They are conservatives but I expected them to stand up for the constitution. They essentially made a blatant political decision.  

Scalia said "The Nation will live to regret this" and Roberts said the existing frame was "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants."

I can only imagine what kind of authoritarian drivel Alito could have mustered, since he thought it was acceptable for police to shoot unarmed kids in the back of the head as part of "law and order".

But consider that if Bush had the chance to appoint just one more justice, this ruling would have been completely different, and enshrined for a generation at least.

Now, we just have to hope that if the whole system ever does fall apart, the government hasn't so badly bungled the prosecution of the entire detention process that anything like an impartial court would have to toss out most/all of the cases. But unfortunately that's what we've got: the administration has made such a habit of gross torture and destruction of evidence and general mischief that any case would be a shambles. Might as well try them on hearsay. Better hope there's enough forensic evidence to support you.

Truth be told I think that may have been part of the plan: not only were they convinced military tribunals were the only way run these things, but they butchered the implementation so badly that the sheer terror of mistrials in civilian court if the tribunals were folded would force people to keep the system in place as is.

Though I have to say that unless I missed something this doesn't necessarily end the tribunals or Gitmo (though it would seem to undermine the central premises), it just means detainees can challenge their detention. They couldn't before, at all, except after a conviction, on appeal based on a failure to follow the procedures of the tribunals correctly; and thus, in other words, the detention itself was beyond reproach.

I'd also like to add this is, I think, the 3rd time. This one seems to be the most comprehensive of all of them, though. I suppose that, 3 rulings back, they could have just said that "Oh and by the way, don't try to pass any laws to rescind habeas, because those won't fly either", but then that would be judicial activism, right? I mean, they'd be looking at more than what they were presented with since no such laws were in question at the time.

I knew this was crap the day it was passed, and for the same reasons the Court cites. I can't believe the idiots who voted for this.

Which brings us to this: Lindsey Graham, one of the "Maverick Threesome" (McCain, Graham, Lieberman), is so upset about this that he's saying we should amend the Constitution. Ho.ly. Key.Rist. On top of general stupidity being a motive, he seems to have had his feelings hurt because he was so invested in the MCA and has been promoting it as one of his greatest achievements.

(http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/stor y/40899.html)

And don't forget McCain's history:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/12/mcca in-habeas-court/

       - In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled in Rasul v. Bush that the Bush administration had no jurisdiction to strip habeas corpus rights from detainees. In 2005, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) introduced legislation overturning this decision and thus stripping detainees of their rights. McCain voted for the bill, which passed 49-42.

       - The Military Commissions Act of 2006 denied anyone Bush labeled "an `illegal enemy combatant' the ancient right to challenge his imprisonment in court." McCain weakly pushed to strengthen the torture restrictions in the legislation, but ignored the lack of habeas rights. In the end, he voted for the Military Commissions Act.

       - In 2007, Senate conservatives successfully filibustered legislation that would have "given military detainees the right to protest their detention in federal court." In a 56-43 vote, the chamber fell just four shy of the 60 needed to cut off debate and proceed with the bill. McCain was part of the conservative filibuster and voted against moving forward with the legislation.

And his campaign blog evidently hearts Scalia's wackadoo comments.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/12/scal ia-courts-decision-restoring-habeas-will -almost-certainly-cause-more-americans-t o-be-killed/

I am encouraged by Obama's pledge to investigate at least some of the activities of the Bush administration, but I am a bit skeptical as well. Such would be much more politically loaded than simply rescinding Bush's executive orders, as he's pledged to do on multiple occasions. But really, at a point, it's sort of moot with me whether he goes so far as to drag them before a court -- the evidence is so clear at this point that there's abundant justification for any international court to starts its own proceedings.