Hamdan

There is this fellow in Guantanamo who is challenging his detention status there. The Government believes that he is clear and present threat to the United States and wishes to try him before a military tribunal. (Not a Courts Martial. From reading the decision, I learned that there is a difference between a military tribunal and a courts martial.)

The Supreme Court ruled on Hamdan today. It's a long, lengthy .pdf file, so be warned. There is lots of analysis and lots of what-if's and wherefor's. But the Supreme Court still uses English, a language I understand. They didn't order his release and they didn't allow the government to execute him. Yet.

Lots of pundits will offer lots of analysis about Hamdan. Lawyers will scream and cry and plead. The basics are really easy to understand. The Supreme Court still uses the English language and those of us who graduated from High School are conversant in that language. The conclusion is easy to read.

We have assumed, as we must, that the allegations made in the Government’s charge against Hamdan are true. We have assumed, moreover, the truth of the message implicit in that charge—viz., that Hamdan is a dangerous individual whose beliefs, if acted upon, would cause great harm and even death to innocent civilians, and who would act upon those beliefs if given the opportunity. It bears emphasizing that Hamdan does not challenge, and we do not today address, the Government’s power to detain him for the duration of active hostilities in order to prevent such harm. But in undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in this jurisdiction.

Well, hell, that ain't as bad as it sounds.

Hold him until the War on Terror is over. Try him before a Courts Martial, then stand him up before a firing squad. Case over.

See? This legal stuff is fairly simple.