Permit me to laugh at David Swanson

[MFrohike]

88. I'm speaking of the administration

The administration claimed the law was settled. That is part of their argument against codification. It says it directly in the paragraph regarding 1031 that you quoted.

The DU link you provided is not a ruling per se, it's a denial of cert. It may, MAY, amount to the same result, but it's not a ruling. I say that because I'm both picky about that sort of thing and for clarity, though mostly for pickiness.

I'm not arguing detention at all, nor am I concerned about citizens being tried in military courts RIGHT NOW. I am concerned about setting precedent on a weak justification. The military courts did not have jurisdiction for this sort of thing when the "War on Terror" began. They had never been contemplated as such a venue. These detainees/terrorists/whatever are being tried for violations of the US Code, not the UCMJ or the "laws of war." The only appropriate venue is a civilian court, either federal or state (state courts could conceivably be a proper venue, as they do have jurisdiction to hear most types of cases arising under federal jurisdiction).

My original comments were a bit of sarcasm directed at the administration's justifications of its position as a means of showing that this administration is no different from any other when it comes to defending executive prerogatives, no matter how flimsy the ground or weak the reasoning. I don't mean that Obama will be slapping Gingrich in Gitmo tomorrow and hauling him in front of a court martial the day after, not even remotely. I think the administration is essentially reactive on this issue, which is standard operating procedure for this White House, in that they found themselves blind-sided by Levin and McCain on this issue. If they really wanted to settle the law regarding detention and trials, it could have been organized by the administration. They should have said that Congress needed to be involved and then said what they needed. Sure, there would have been a fight and the various horse-trades. The executive would be occupying the field, however, instead of reacting with weak justifications to a fait accompli.

I feel my original point is being lost. I was mocking their reasoning by pointing out the flaws.