As I go back and review the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Hamdi, it held, in part, that Hamdi “was indisputably seized in an active combat zone abroad” and that it had no authority to consider his case because it might “obstruct[ ] [the] war efforts authorized by Congress and undertaken by the executive branch.” The judiciary must “assume a deferential posture” in reviewing a commander in chief’s actions during war. So, while Thomas (and I) are in a minority here, our views are consistent with the most conservative circuit.