Hamden

I have only perused the Hamdan decision (it is 185 pages long), but this piece by Andy McCarthy seems to get it right.  An excerpt:

Alien combatants have no constitutional rights; therefore, they have no constitutional right to be present at trial.  On the other hand, protecting the security of the American people — which is what classified information is all about — is the number one obligation of government.  So by what law does an al Qaeda killer's purported right to be present outweigh the American people's unquestioned right to have the government protect them (by, for example, not providing the enemy with sensitive intelligence)? 

It could only conceivably be Geneva's Common Article 3 — an international law provision the court had to twist beyond recognition to give the enemy its benefit.  That fuzzy language talks about providing "judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized people."  OK, but who says all "civilized people" would opt to elevate a homicidal maniac's right of access to the government's most sensitive information over the government's obligation to protect its citizens by withholding intelligence that may help those trying to kill them do just that? 

Many people are opining that Democrats, some of whom are celebrating the Hamdan decision, may rue the day this decision came down.  See this from Jonah Goldberg:

Well, here you have Nancy Pelosi saying the decision was not only a "triumph" but that “Today’s Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system."

If you were running for Congress as a Republican, wouldn't you be tempted to run that quote over pictures of the 9/11 hijackers and the World Trade Center crashing down? Hamdan makes national security and terrorism a central issue of the Congressional elections, again.That's good news for the GOP, I think.

Time will tell whether Goldberg's analysis is accurate.  The Court has essentially thrown this question to Congress.  Now over the next few months expect a debate on what powers Congress should give the president in this arena.  I suspect that Congress will essentially give the president everything he wants.  Are the Democrats willing to oppose this at price of appearing soft on terrorists?  I suspect not.  Giving the president wide latitude in prosecuting foreign terrorists is both good policy and good politics.