Update: CCR Produces Analysis of Landmark Supreme Court Decision

via mal contends
The Supreme Court decision (in Boumediene v. Bush /Al Odah v. United States) is a historic affirmation of the principle of habeas corpus (in Latin, "you shall have the body"), and a rejection of the acclaimed right of the tyrant, George W. Bush in this instance, to imprison another with no sound recourse for the accused; in these cases, the detained prisoners at the U.S. base at Guantánamo.

Habeas corpus refers simply to the right of the accused to go before an impartial judge and challenge the rationale behind the denial of his/her liberty.

Update: CCR Produces Analysis of Landmark Supreme Court Decision

Update II: Read Jon Wiener's Arguing About Gitmo in The Nation.  

Update: The transcript of today’s consolidated argument in Boumediene v. Bush (06-1195) and Al Odah v. United States (06-1196) is available at U.S. Oral Arguments Transcripts.

by Michael Leon

Madison, Wisconsin— Recalling his successful arguing of the landmark Fourth Amendment case in 1972 against the Nixon administration as Nixon literally sought the legal destruction of American Constitutional government through the Supreme Court’s imprimatur, the great civil rights attorney, Arthur Kinoy (1920-2003), writes:

The government’s team had arrived. I immediately looked for their most prominent member, the one wearing the traditional long morning coat that government lawyers invariably wear when arguing before the High Court. … I expected to see Erwin Griswold, the Solicitor General and a former dean of Harvard Law School (pictured above-right). … Instead, I saw an unfamiliar man, tall, dark, and scowling, wearing the morning coat. I turned to (William) Gossett and whispered, ‘It’s not Griswold!’ ‘No,’ answered Gossett, ‘it’s Mardian (Robert Mardian, a Nixon hatchet man at the DoJ Internal Security Division, dedicated to the destruction of anti-war and civil rights citizen groups.) … ‘All (Mardian) needs is the jackboots,’ someone later remarked to Kinoy. … Then something even stranger happened. Griswold walked into the courtroom and sat down in the seat reserved for the Solicitor General, as though to make it clear to the Court that he had not withdrawn because of illness or scheduling conflicts, but for some other reason. He sat there quietly throughout the argument, as if he were constantly saying to the Court through his physical presence, ‘I am not arguing this case. Just remember that.’