Change is here; now go change the details--habeas corpus edition

Now for some real news that, naturally, is consigned to oblivion thanks to the bailout and Valentine's Day newsthink. Yesterday, a federal judge ruled against the Obama Administration on a key aspect of the current habeas corpus mess: Define what an "enemy combatant" is before we decide whether to keep holding them.

In the first federal court ruling rejecting a position of the Obama Administration on detention of terrorism suspects, a federal judge in Washington on Wednesday turned aside an Administration plea to go forward with detainees’ challenges without first defining who may be held as an “enemy combatant.” U.S. District Judge John D. Bates decided that no habeas cases can be decided without settling who may be treated as an enemy in the “war on terrorism.” However, he did give the Administration some added time — until March 13 — to come up with an alternative definition to one that he will be using temporarily. The judge’s order, though written in moderate terms, conveyed some impatience with the government’s initial response.

Emphasis mine. If you don't know or care about habeas corpus...sigh. Obama is, as we've been reminded once or twice, a constitutional law professor, and once memorably talked during the campaign about the need to protect one of our most important rights:

But, the former constitutional law professor argued, "What I have also said is this: that when you suspend habeas corpus -- which has been a principle, dating before even our country, it’s the foundation of Anglo-American law -- which says, very simply, if the government grabs you, then you have the right to at least ask, 'Why was I grabbed?' and say, 'Maybe you’ve got the wrong person.'

"The reason you have that safeguard," he said, "is because we don't always have the right person. We don’t always catch the right person. We may think this is Mohammed the terrorist, it might be Mohammed the cab driver. You may think it’s Barack the bomb thrower, but it might be Barack the guy running for president.

Myes, "why was I grabbed?" If you don't care to remember what h/c is, please burn that phrase in your brain, and know that you have a constitutional right to ask that in court. Not just in America, either. As George Will points out:

No state power is more fearsome than the power to imprison. Hence the habeas right has been at the heart of the centuries-long struggle to constrain governments, a struggle in which the greatest event was the writing of America's Constitution, which limits Congress's power to revoke habeas corpus to periods of rebellion or invasion.

Now, back to Judge Bates' decision. Without a properly focused definition of "enemy combatant," this Administration can hold almost anyone indefinitely, and the burden of proof shifts inordinately to the defense--and hinges on the capability of their lawyers. Candidate Obama railed against such sloppy uses/abuses of government power. Now, President Obama needs to go change how that power is used. The devil was always in the details.