In August 2006, for example, the top lawyer at the在2006年8月，舉例來說，頂端律師在 State Department 國務院 told senior officials at the White House that unless they won a congressional mandate that broadly supported their system of detaining terrorism suspects, their goal of keeping the detainees locked up was in jeopardy.告訴高級官員在白宮表示，除非他們贏得了國會的任務，得到廣泛支持他們的系統拘留恐怖嫌疑人，他們的目標，保持被拘留者關起來是處於危險之中。 “I can virtually guarantee you, without a legislative basis, federal courts are not going to be willing to uphold the indefinite detention of unlawful combatants,” “我幾乎可以向你保證，如果沒有立法的基礎上，聯邦法院不打算願意堅持無限期拘留的非法戰鬥人員” John B. Bellinger III 約翰乙bellinger三 warned in an e-mail.警告，在一份電子郵件。

The e-mail, disclosed by former White House officials familiar with the intense internal debates over detainee policy, was one of several red flags for the White House in its fierce battle to keep the detention facility in Cuba free of judicial oversight.電子郵件透露，由前白宮官員熟悉激烈的內部爭論，被拘留者的政策，是一個數的紅旗為白宮在其激烈戰鬥，以保持拘留所，在古巴自由的司法監督。

The result, they said, has been a series of losses at the Supreme Court, including last week’s 5 to 4 ruling that detainees at Guantanamo have a constitutional right to a review of their detention in federal courts — a ruling that holds out the prospect of heavy litigation and close judicial scrutiny of decision-making that the administration has long argued is best left to the president.結果他們說，遭到了一系列的損失，在最高法院，包括上週的5至4月裁決，認為關押在關塔那摩有一個憲法權利，以檢討其被拘留的美國聯邦法院-裁決，認為出展望沉重的訴訟和密切的司法審查的決策時表示，政府當局已久辯稱是最好留給主席。

“Through misjudgment and overreaching, the White House ended up with the very result it sought to avoid — heavy judicial involvement and erosion of deference to the president’s view of wartime necessities,” said Matthew Waxman, who worked on detainee affairs at the State Department and “通過誤判和overreaching ，白宮結束與它的結果非常試圖避免-沉重的司法介入和侵蝕聽從總統的看法，戰時必需品，說： ”馬修韋克斯曼，誰的工作就被拘留事務的國家署和 the Pentagon 五角大樓 before leaving last fall to teach law at臨走去年秋天，教導法 Columbia University 哥倫比亞大學 . 。

“The administration pursued the policy course it wanted,” said former State Department counselor “政府奉行的政策，當然要，說： ”前國務院參事 Philip D. Zelikow 弘四zelikow , who was involved in some of the debates over detainee policy. ，誰是所涉及的一些爭論被拘留者的政策。 “It planned for the best instead of preparing for the worst, and decided that it would prefer to fight for what it wanted.” “該公司計劃爭取最好的，而是準備最壞的打算，並決定它寧願去爭取什麼，它想” 。

Even some conservative allies of the administration agree that the White House may have mishandled elements of its strategy, but they pin most of the blame for the administration’s predicament on the leanings of the Supreme Court.即使是一些保守的盟友，政府當局同意，白宮可能有處理不當的要素，其戰略，但他們的PIN大部分歸咎於政府當局的困境，就傾向的最高法院。

“It may well be fair to fault the Bush administration politically for failing to work with Congress early on to develop a statutory framework governing Guantanamo detainees,” said M. Edward Whelan III, a former Bush Justice Department official who now heads the Ethics and Public Policy Center. “這可能是公平的故障，布什政府在政治上未能與國會合作年初就制定一個法定架構，規管關塔那摩囚犯說： ”米何承天惠蘭三，布什的前司法部官員現在誰元首倫理和公共政策中心。 “But the narrow Supreme Court majorities in the Guantanamo cases deserve far harsher criticism for their gross misreadings of the law and their abandonment of sound precedent on which the administration reasonably relied.” “但狹窄的最高法院的多數在關塔那摩的個案，值得到目前為止，嚴厲的批評，他們總誤讀的法律和放棄健全的先例，而政府當局合理地倚賴” 。

White House officials said it is unfair to second-guess their strategy, given the narrow divisions on the court.白宮官員稱，這是不公平的第二個猜測他們的策略，鑑於狹窄告上法庭。 “I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to say there was a chance that the administration could lose this case,” said one top official involved in detainee policy, referring to last week’s ruling. “我不認為它需要火箭科學家說，有機會時表示，政府當局可能會失去這種情況下，說： ”一高級官員所涉及的被拘留者的政策，是指在上週的裁決。 But he argued that “it would be very unusual for a Congress and executive branch to formulate national security policy based on the expectation that the Supreme Court would misinterpret the Constitution.”但他辯稱： “這將是非常不尋常的一個國會和行政部門制定國家安全政策的基礎上，預期最高法院會曲解憲法” 。

From the days soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush administration has been divided over what to do with從天後不久， 2001年9月11日，攻擊，布什政府一直分歧怎麼辦與 al-Qaeda 蓋達組織 and和 Taliban 塔利班 members and others picked up in Afghanistan and elsewhere.成員和其他拾起在阿富汗和其他地方。 Hundreds of terrorism suspects were sent to the naval facility at Guantanamo Bay on the theory that it would be easier to keep them outside the formal US court system.數百名恐怖主義嫌疑人已被送往海軍設施在關塔那摩灣上的理論，會更容易讓他們以外正式向美國法院系統。

Administration officials debated whether the detainees were protected by the Geneva Conventions; whether the president could order detentions without an act of Congress; and whether the detainees had the right to appeal their detentions.政府官員討論是否被拘留者受日內瓦公約;主席是否可下令拘留的一項國會法案，以及是否被拘留者的上訴權利，他們拘留。

A key issue for the White House was maximizing the power of the president — a motivation that led the administration into a troubled Supreme Court strategy, according to several participants in these debates.一個關鍵問題，白宮正在最大限度總統權力-的動機，導致政府成為一個困擾，最高法院的策略，根據幾位與會者在這些辯論。 A turning point, they said, came in 2004, when the Supreme Court announced that it would review whether the government could hold Yaser Esam Hamdi, a US citizen whom the administration considered an enemy combatant, without trial or charge.一個轉折點，他們說，來到2004年，當最高法院宣布，它將檢討政府是否可以舉行yaser esam哈姆迪，美國公民，其中，政府當局認為，敵方戰鬥人員，未經審判或收費。

Jack L. Goldsmith, then head of the傑克屬金，然後頭部的 Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel 司法部的法律顧問辦公室 , wrote in his book “The Terror Presidency” of a White House meeting he attended in February of that year in which寫道，在他的著作“恐怖院長會議”的白宮會議上，他出席了在2月的這一年中， Paul D. Clement 保羅四克萊門特 , of the solicitor general’s office, warned that the administration might lose the case before the Supreme Court, despite its “solid legal arguments.” Goldsmith said he suggested that the administration seek a congressional sign-off for the entire detention program, something that would make it harder for the court to strike down the program. ，律師一般的辦公室，警告說，政府可能會失去案之前，最高法院，儘管其“堅實的法律論點” 。戈爾德史密斯說，他建議政府當局尋求國會簽署小康，為整個拘留的計劃，一些這將使更難為法院打擊的計劃。