The wolves are circling around U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Great. Hope they eat him. But the swing in sentiment against him makes me tired. Back when most Americans polled thought the war Iraq was a swell idea and sat around the dinner table cursing the French, Rumsfeld was a hero and was even hailed as a sex symbol. The press ate from his hand. The military guys who hated his guts and thought he was lousy at his job held their peace, at least in public.

Now that all but the most psychotically optimistic observers recognize Iraq’s a mess, Amrika needs its scapegoat (in the original, Biblical sense of the word), and Rumsfeld seems perfect for the job.

But the most important case being made against Rumsfeld right now—the one that will affect the world much more and for much longer—is the one in the Supreme Court. Superficially, what’s at stake in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld is the fate of 10 prisoners in Guantanamo Bay scheduled to appear before the military commissions President Bush established in a November 2001 military order. But I think Navy Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift, Hamdan’s military lawyer (and my hero), best summed up what’s really at stake:

Mr. Bush and his lawyers have made it clear that he wants a precedent that says the president, as commander in chief, can arrest any person in the world and then put that person on trial before a military tribunal or commission. They’ve made it very clear that these powers can be exercised against American citizens right here at home. The president talks about the global war on terror and his lawyers have gone into court frequently saying the United States is a battlefield in this war.

I’ve finally finished reading the transcript of the oral arguments. I don’t recommend it. Much better to listen to the MP3. Unfortunately the briefs aren’t available as podcasts, but they’re all available at the extraordinarily helpful www.hamdanvrumsfeld.com.

Technorati Tags: Hamdan, Rumsfeld, Guantanamo, United States, human rights