Guilty until Proven Innocent: What's Missing in the Analysis of the Hamdi Ruling

Beginning of article

the Supreme Court's recent decision in the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case regarding the detention of an American citizen as an "enemy combatant," along with its sister cases, is being hailed positively as the most significant civil liberties opinion in a half century. While the importance is undeniable, many organizations and news outlets mischaracterize the Hamdi ruling as a landmark decision in defense of the Bill of Rights. It is not.

After reading so many headlines declaring victory for civil liberties and defeat for the Bush administration, one can't help wondering if anyone actually read the opinions. One simple demonstration of the lack of critical reporting on this case is that nearly every news source from National Public Radio to the Washington Times reported the vote on the ruling as 8-1 when in fact it was 6-3, as even a casual reading of the opinions confirms.

Key elements of the Hamdi decision are glaringly absent from favorable reviews. First, the Court ruled that lower courts which hear detainee cases must shift the focal point …