Bad Laws are Like Cancer

They're pretty much impossible to carve out:

A federal judge upheld the Bush administration's new terrorism law Wednesday, agreeing that Guantanamo Bay detainees do not have the right to challenge their imprisonment in U.S. courts.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge James Robertson is the first to address the new Military Commissions Act and is a legal victory for the Bush administration at a time when it has been fending off criticism of the law from Democrats and libertarians.

Robertson rejected a legal challenge by Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a former driver for Osama bin Laden whose case prompted the Supreme Court to strike down the Bush administration's policy on detainees last year [...]

Though Robertson originally sided with Hamdan, he said that he no longer had jurisdiction to hear Hamdan's case because Congress clearly intended to keep such disputes out of federal courts. He said foreigners being held in overseas military prisons do not have the right to challenge their detention, a right people inside the country normally enjoy.

"This is the first time in the history of this country that a court has held that a man may be held by our government in a place where no law applies," said Barbara Olshansky, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has handled many detainee cases.

I expect the CCR to appeal, but clearly this sets a precedent that allows the US to deny habeas corpus protections to detainees. It hampers any challenge on the constitutional question.

During the shameful debate on the Military Commissions act, I remember both legislators (like Arlen Specter), and people in the progressive blogosphere, claiming that this would be ruled unconstitutional and don't worry because judiciary will bail us out.

Care to give a statement now?