Arlen Specter: “I would not mind being a bit presumptuous. I wouldn't even mind being a lot presumptuous in response to the opinion of…”

“I would not mind being a bit presumptuous. I wouldn't even mind being a lot presumptuous in response to the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. But I don't think it is presumptuous at all to go into the facts, which we know from Judge Green's opinion, as to the detainee involved in the Boumediene case and where the only allegation is that he talked to an al-Qaida person and they couldn't even give the name. You have the definition of the Department of Defense requiring that there be information about the detainee supporting al-Qaida forces or committing a belligerent act. However, nobody said those things about the detainee in the case. And then there is the court of appeals, a split court, with the opinion of Judge Rogers in dissent, I understand the relative merits of a two-judge majority, one in dissent, but that doesn't overcome the continuing importance of the Rogers' analysis of the majority opinion concerning their attempt to slice the apple by holding that the Supreme Court's opinion in Rasul was statutory and not constitutional. The majority said that the Eisentrager case was not overruled by Rasul. But it obviously was, as Justice Scalia acknowledged in his dissent in the Rasul case. And Justice Scalia would have all the more reason for disagreeing if there was any basis at all to say that Eisentrager was not overruled.”