Daniel R. Williams (Northeastern University - School of Law) has posted Who Got Game? Boumediene v. Bush and the Judicial Gamesmanship of Enemy-Combatant Detention (New England Law Review, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Our war-on-terror jurisprudence heavily leans towards process issues and largely eschews making any robust commitments to substantive human rights. This article argues that Boumediene substantiates that observation. This was not a case about individual rights-a fact Justice Roberts underscores in his dissent. The contention that Guantanamo detainees have no enforceable rights under the Constitution frames the issue in terms that might have political appeal within a nation too easily manipulated by fear-mongering. Although the majority never admits it, it is quite apparent that Kennedy wants to frame the case away from being a struggle over human rights because, framed within the language of human rights, the case becomes a game the majority cannot win. The result of all this litigation has not forestalled the continued executive detention at Guantanamo, with no evidence that the human-rights concerns that have always plagued that detention site has abated, including the use of torture. It has not improved the adjudicatory process there to the point where a fair-minded and knowledgeable person could be satisfied that it comports with the Kantian tradition that underpins our system of trial and punishment. What this cautious, process-oriented litigation strategy has done is produce often overblown rhetorical gestures about how the three branches should interact in this war on terror, without any regard for the disturbing controversy over what this war on terror is really about and without any recognition that this "war" is doomed to paralysis unless and until there is reason to believe that the government will not, in some fashion, replicate the abuses of the twentieth century.
