<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>What's the Big Rush?</title><link>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/06/13/what-s-the-big-rush.aspx</link><description>Both before and after the court's decision yesterday in Boumediene , I wrote that if the Guantanamo detainees are afforded habeas rights, there would be (and is) little reason to consider any legislative response: "B ecause the Court holds that such detainees</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP2 (Build: 61129.2)</generator></channel></rss>