Weblog Name: The Yin Blog
Subtitle/Tagline: Random thoughts on law, politics, game theory, sports, books, television shows, and movies.
Focus: Law
Author: Tung Yin
Blogger Occupation: Law Professor
Blogger Location: Iowa
Ecosystem Rank: Marauding Marsupial
TTLBBE Unique Inbound Links: 67
Average Daily Visits: 297
Last Post: January 12, 2004
Posting Frequency: 1.92 posts/day
Blog Age: 11.0 months
First on Blogroll: Stephen Bainbridge
Blogroll Organization: Unknown
Comments Allowed: Yes
Selected Post: Supreme Court takes the Hamdi case
Excerpt:
This case, contrasted with the Gitmo detainees (also up before the Court), strikes me as the sort of area most susceptible to a Justice O'Connor kind of balancing test, with the Gitmo detainees getting no right to counsel and no access to counsel, but Hamdi getting access to counsel and to an Article III court. The usual argument against giving wartime enemies access to counsel and courts boils down to one of logistics and practicalities: we simply could not and would not have given every Japanese and German POW or detainee a lawyer during World War II to litigate the legality of detention. There would have been too many POWs. But the number of U.S. citizens who fight for the enemy in a war is likely to be much much smaller, and hence it might be workable to give them attorneys and some right to a federal court. This is consistent with Ex Parte Quirin, the German saboteurs case; one of the eight was a U.S. citizen. All eight were tried and convicted in a military tribunal (they had counsel), but they all managed to file a habeas petition seeking review by the Supreme Court. Thus, that U.S. citizen, who fought on the side of Germany, did have counsel and access to a federal court (however limited).
Bonus Link: A Pete Rose Autograph Story
Comment: This is an interesting and eclecting blog containing posts on, among other topics, law, politics and sports.
As of: January 12, 2004
Posted by oscarjr at January 12, 2004 10:22 PM | TrackBack