Stardate 20020220.1055

(On Screen): OK, IANAL. but it seems to me that this lawsuit is not going to succeed. Unlike that silly suit filed in LA, the plaintiffs in this case do have standing.

One of the ex-combatants being held at Guantanamo is Australian and two are Brits. This lawyer represents their families, and he claims that their constitutional rights are being violated.

He's filing a writ of Habeas Corpus. The Constitution says The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. I think that September 11 probably counts as "invasion", and there is a clear risk to the public safety represented by the men being held in Cuba.

But the real problem with his argument is that it's not at all clear that the court has jurisdiction, and even if it does it is not at all obvious that the prisoners in Guantanamo are entitled to US constitutional rights. They are not citizens and they are not being held on sovereign US territory. (That base doesn't count; there's also legal precedent for that.)

Ref my previous post, being too benevolent with granting of civil rights is a "saint" strategy. And saints lose. I do not care to have my nation go down in history as being both virtuous and extinct.