From Duke Law:
Quote:
The key element of the Court’s statutory reasoning was that the AUMF was a sufficient authorization of battlefield detentions to satisfy § 4001(a), because the detention of enemies seized on the battlefield was sufficiently related to the conduct of the military action contemplated by the authorization that it was an “exercise of ‘necessary and appropriate force.’”
|
Also I do believe your representation of Stevens as being in the majority is 100% wrong, as the decision was held in plurality with O' Connor writing the opinion with Rehnquist, Breyer, and Kennedy; Souter and Ginsberg ruling concurrently against the detention but stating Hamdi has the right to challenge his detention; and <gasp> the evil conservatives Scalia, Thomas, and your boy Stevens dissenting.
Quote:
In determining that the AUMF was an Act of Congress sufficient to satisfy § 4001(a), the plurality limited the holding to the facts before it, and limited the justification for such detention to the sole objective of preventing an enemy combatant from returning to the battlefield, and then only so long as there continued to be “active hostilities.” While the government argued that by its nature, it is difficult to predict the end of hostilities, the Court stated that the possibility of perpetual detention was troubling.
|
The court was troubled by the very questions everyone here poses, and I agree with. The issue is however, and the court recognized it, is congress gave authority for force and troops are still in active combat in Afghanistan.
http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/su...entary/hamvrum