A Second Look at Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

Shortly after I'd taken a first look at SCOTUS's Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision this morning, I came across an interesting analysis on Captain's Quarters, wherein they cited part of the majority's opinion (written by Stevens), which I confirmed here and copied below.

We have assumed, as we must, that the allegations made in the Government's charge against Hamdan are true. We have assumed, moreover, the truth of the message implicit in that charge--viz., that Hamdan is a dangerous individual whose beliefs, if acted upon, would cause great harm and even death to innocent civilians, and who would act upon those beliefs if given the opportunity. It bears emphasizing that Hamdan does not challenge, and we do not today address, the Government's power to detain him for the duration of active hostilities in order to prevent such harm. But in undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in this jurisdiction.

So what exactly does all of this mean? Basically, my interpretation (backed up by the far wiser folks over at CQ) is that Gitmo's legality, as well as the legality of indefinite detention, is not at all challenged by the Hamdan ruling. Even more meaningful for our prosecution of our struggle against terrorism, when attempting to try detainees, the US "is bound to comply with the Rule of Law" - however, they are in no way forced to bring them to trial. Thus what at first glance might seem a defeat for aggressive anti-terrorism is in fact something of a victory, though a sort of backhanded one. I'll let CQ have the last word:

I'm satisfied with that agreement. Lock all of them up until Islamofascists surrender or die. When the Islamist terror networks give up their war on the United States, then we will release them. Until then, they can remain in Guantanamo Bay or wherever we set up detention facilities for them.

Couldn't have said it better myself.