The interesting thing about this compass/homing ring is that it not only points to the displaced heart, but furthermore it mirrors the externalized function of that heart itself (by pointing to that which one desires the most). In the case of the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision, the role of this external moral compass is played by the Geneva Convention accords. That is to say, there is a poignant irony in the fact that the Supreme Court is appealing, in a crucial moment of a long a complex decision, to an international treaty precisely in order to reaffirm the constitutional rights and freedoms which it is sworn to uphold as its own (i.e., its “heart”).
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
1 - Victor Plenty
Thank you for this thought-provoking commentary. I held off on reading it because I did not get to see Dead Man's Chest until just last night.
There is one minor correction I should point out. The phrase used in the attempt to justify denying the rights of prisoners of war to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay is "illegal combatants."
If they were merely ordinary "enemy combatants," the Geneva Conventions would unquestionably apply to them.
2 - Sterfish
Excellent post. I can't believe you managed to find a way to connect a summer blockbuster, a Japanese anime film, and current politics into a cohesive article. Amazing.
3 - carlos rojas
Sterfish--many thanks.
Victor Plenty--there are many varients of the term which have been used in these discussions, but "enemy combatants" is actually the phrase used in the the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA), Pub. L. 109-148, 119 Stat. 2739, which the government cited in its argument to have the case dismissed. As the beginning of the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision itself notes, "Subsection (e) of §1005 [of the DTA], which is entitled "JUDICIAL REVIEW OF DETENTION OF ENEMY COMBATANTS" supplies the basis for the Government's jurisdictional argument."