Often the best way to determine if something is a good idea is to ask, "What if everyone did it? That's pretty close to the question Eugene Volokh is asking about habeas petitions for those at Guatanamo:
Let's say that we weren't dealing with several hundred detainees, but with tens or hundreds of thousands, as was the case during World War II. If one of them has the right to petition for habeas corpus, then all the others would, too (since the habeas claims, such as "I'm not really an enemy soldier," would involve different facts for each person). Courts would have an obligation to consider each petition. Presumably the government would have an obligation to respond to the factual allegations (unless the factual allegations are clearly insufficient). Since each case would focus so closely on the factual claims, it wouldn't be enough for government lawyers to submit boilerplate responses -- they'd have to also interview soldiers (some of whom might still be out in the field) who can testify to the circumstances of the person's capture.
As usual, Eugene has hit the nail on the head. There's simply no way that it's practical to allow such a thing. And if it's not right for a hundred thousand, it's not right for a few hundred either.
Actually, you could take this even further. Say we were to allow such a thing. Wouldn't it then be possible that an enemy nation might attempt to recruit people for the specific purpose of getting caught and over burdening our system?
Comments