On Wednesday, I previewed the oral argument in the Hamdan case, in which the government has appealed a district court ruling halting the military trial of a Guantanamo Bay detainee on the grounds that the proceeding is illegal. At stake, among other things, is whether the government can exclude suspected al Qaeda detainees from portions of their trial in which it presents classified information that would be helpful to al Qaeda. Here’s the AP Report on the oral argument carried by the Washington Times.
In a case like this, the composition of the appeals court panel is usually key (hence the judicial wars being waged in Congress). The government got lucky — John Roberts and A. Raymond Randolph were on the three-judge panel. Both would be on my short list for Supreme Court Justice. The AP report indicates that Hamdan’s lawyer faced some tough questioning.
-
-
Most Read on Power Line
Donate to PL
-
Our Favorites
- American Greatness
- American Mind
- American Story
- American Thinker
- Aspen beat
- Babylon Bee
- Belmont Club
- Churchill Project
- Claremont Institute
- Daily Torch
- Federalist
- Gatestone Institute
- Hollywood in Toto
- Hoover Institution
- Hot Air
- Hugh Hewitt
- InstaPundit
- Jewish World Review
- Law & Liberty
- Legal Insurrection
- Liberty Daily
- Lileks
- Lucianne
- Michael Ramirez Cartoons
- Michelle Malkin
- Pipeline
- RealClearPolitics
- Ricochet
- Steyn Online
- Tim Blair
Media
Subscribe to Power Line by Email
Temporarily disabled
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.