In the first two years after Sept. 11, whenever its terrorism or detention policies were challenged in the courts, the Bush administration waged a scorched-earth legal campaign in its own defense. Justice Department lawyers routinely deployed an arsenal of procedural motions and legal delay tactics to keep the federal courts from ever hearing a terrorism case on the merits. When the Supreme Court stepped in last June with the last word on the legality of such wartime practices, observers (including me) had a right to hope that the administration would cease its foot-dragging and finally conform its policies to the demands of the justices and the rule of law.
The Bush administration dashed that hope last month with a series of actions concerning detainees from the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq.
Details here from Phillip Carter of Slate. (link via How Appealing)
UPDATE (8/4): In the article above, Mr. Carter predicted that many detainees would wisely refuse to cooperate in the new "U.S. military review hearings," which are designed to develop evidence justifying the initial seizure of the suspects. Now this:
Four Guantanamo Prisoners Refuse Hearings
[H]uman rights groups criticize the process as a sham, saying the three officers assigned to hear cases can't be considered impartial and that each detainee should be allowed a lawyer.
"What you have is a process that would be suitable for resolving a dispute over a parking ticket. It's not an acceptable process," said Alistair Hodgett, of Amnesty International. "It's really an after-the-fact justification for detaining people without charge or fair trial."
Details here from the AP.