1115.org

Comments

1. Nick in Beantown wrote:

   From the article:

   The ruling was eagerly awaited by Bush administration officials, who want to bring charges against more prisoners…

   This ruling is essentially highest court in the land saying the President cannot setup his own courts. It does not address the method of detention. I’ll bet this means those who are not charge with anything will remain in limbo.

   Posted 29 Jun 2006 at 7:53 am ¶

2. Jason wrote:

   Also, be sure to revisit the following terms, since they will be surely used a lot in the next few days by outraged, red-faced pundits on almost every network:

   “Judicial tyranny”
   “Judicial activism”
   “un-elected judges”

   Maybe Ann Coulter or Pat Robertson will revisit calling for one or more of the Supremes to die or be otherwise incapacitated, to be followed by a hasty press release that they didn’t really mean it.

   Posted 29 Jun 2006 at 8:27 am ¶

3. sarabeth wrote:

   Reuters:

   “We conclude that the military commission convened to try (Salim Ahmed) Hamdan lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate” the international agreement that covers treatment of prisoners of war, as well as U.S. military laws, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court majority in the 5-3 decision.

   Sounds like they are saying that those incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay are prisoners of war and not “enemy combatants”, and are entitled to the full protection of the Geneva conventions. That does mean they can’t be treated in the same old way, and to that extent it does address the method of detention.

   Limbo may still apply though, since they can presumably be held indefinitely as prisoners of war without being charged with any crime.

   Posted 29 Jun 2006 at 8:39 am ¶

4. sarabeth wrote:

   WaPo:

   The Supreme Court today delivered a stunning rebuke to the Bush administration over its plans to try Guantanamo detainees before military commissions, ruling that the commissions violate U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions governing the treatment of war prisoners.

   In a 5-3 decision, the court said the trials were not authorized by any act of Congress and that their structure and procedures violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949.
   […]
   Hamdan, who was charged with a single count of conspiracy to commit war crimes and terrorism, had argued that no congressional act or common law of war supported a trial by a military commission for conspiracy, an offense he maintained was not covered by the laws of war. He also argued that the commission’s procedures violated U.S. military and international law, including the principle that a defendant must be allowed to see and hear the evidence against him….

   Writing the majority opinion, Stevens said, “we conclude that the military commission convened to try Hamdan lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions.” He said four justices also found that the offense attributed to Hamdan is not one that can be tried by a military commission under the laws of war.
   […]
   Joining Stevens in the majority were justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Anthony M. Kennedy and David H. Souter. Dissenting were justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
   […]
   In a concurring opinion, Breyer strongly disputed the dissenters’ assertion that today’s ruling would, as Thomas wrote, “sorely hamper the president’s ability to defeat a new and deadly enemy.”

   “The Court’s conclusion ultimately rests upon a single ground: Congress has not issued the Executive a ‘blank check,’ Breyer wrote.
   […]
   The case raised core constitutional principles of separation of powers as well as fundamental issues of individual rights. Specifically, the questions concerned:

   ? The power of Congress and the executive to strip the federal courts and the Supreme Court of jurisdiction.

   ? The authority of the executive to lock up individuals under claims of wartime power, without benefit of traditional protections such as a jury trial, the right to cross-examine one’s accusers and the right to judicial appeal.

   ? The applicability of international treaties — specifically the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war — to the government’s treatment of those it deems “enemy combatants.”

   Posted 29 Jun 2006 at 9:30 am ¶

5. JimC wrote:

   Limbo may still apply though, since they can presumably be held indefinitely as prisoners of war without being charged with any crime.

   Again, adopt-a-detainee program would solve the limbo issue, I’m sure there will be enough liberals step up to adopt one to get them out of limbo, seeing as how they are not dangerous and really just there by mistake, imprisoned by the Tyranical US Goverment.

   Posted 29 Jun 2006 at 9:33 am ¶

6. sarabeth wrote:

   Monsters and Critics quotes some of the language from the ruling that validates the term “stinging rebuke”:

   Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority (that the military commissions were required) ‘to incorporate at least the barest of those trial protections that have been recognized by customary international law.’

   ‘In undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the (Bush administration) is bound to comply with the rule of law that prevails in this jurisdiction,’ Stevens said, according to CNN.

   Those are pretty strong bitch-slaps in my book.

   Posted 29 Jun 2006 at 9:38 am ¶

7. sarabeth wrote:

   My amateur legal analysis above can now be replaced by the real thing: Marty Lederman from SCOTUSblog (emphasis his):

   …the Court held that Common Article 3 of Geneva applies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today’s ruling. The commissions are the least of it. This basically resolves the debate about interrogation techniques, because Common Article 3 provides that detained persons “shall in all circumstances be treated humanely,” and that “[t]o this end,” certain specified acts “are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever”—including “cruel treatment and torture,” and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” This standard, not limited to the restrictions of the due process clause, is much more restrictive than even the McCain Amendment. See my further discussion here.

   This almost certainly means that the CIA’s interrogation regime is unlawful, and indeed, that many techniques the Administation has been using, such as waterboarding and hypothermia (and others) violate the War Crimes Act (because violations of Common Article 3 are deemed war crimes).

   If I’m right about this, it’s enormously significant.

   Posted 29 Jun 2006 at 10:07 am ¶

8. sarabeth wrote:

   The initial spin being put on this story – by President Bush during his joint press conference with Japanese prime minister Koizumi, and by Tony Snow during his White House press corps briefing which is happening right now – is that we’ll just go to Congress and get proper authorization for these military tribunals.

   What that doesn’t take into account is that the Supreme Court is saying you also have to conform to the Geneva conventions.

   They can go to Congress, but the military tribunals they will have to get authorized will need to operate very differently from the ones that were just tossed out of the window.

   They may save face by saying “Hey, they are still military tribunals” but if they look like courts-martial and they walk like courts-martial and they talk like courts-martial, they’re basically just going to be falling in line with what the Supreme Court said: civilian courts or courts-martial.

   Posted 29 Jun 2006 at 10:32 am ¶

9. JimC wrote:

   Andy McCarthy called this one correctly and now this decision has made an unequal treaty with Al-Quida, something the court system does not have the authority to do…talk about a constituional crisis….

   Posted 29 Jun 2006 at 11:16 am ¶

10. Jason wrote:

    The court does, however, have the authority to INTERPRET the laws and rule if the executive branch overstepped it’s boundaries…this is basic American government 101, which is probably taught to every person in this country in grade school. Saying that they unilaterally made a treaty with terrorists sounds all scary and impressive, but come on now…to say that the Supreme Court can’t make a judgement in issues directly relating to our country’s laws and trial system is just silly.

    This is a country of laws, not of men. And just because Bush fancies himself to be beyond the restrictions of the laws or the other two branches of government, doesn’t mean that it’s true, either.

    Also…it’s been four years since many of the Guantanamo inmates were put there. What, exactly, would be the downside of putting them on trial, if we are sure of how dangerous they are? Isn’t that the way things are supposed to work?

    Posted 29 Jun 2006 at 12:31 pm ¶

11. JimC wrote:

    Also…it’s been four years since many of the Guantanamo inmates were put there. What, exactly, would be the downside of putting them on trial, if we are sure of how dangerous they are? Isn’t that the way things are supposed to work?

    They are enemy combatants who don’t have rights under our Constitution, that’s what the problem is…bringing them into our courts is wrong. The way it stands now, classifying them as POW’s under the Geneva convetion is also wrong because they do not belong to a country that we are at war with but rather an organization that has no country or boundries, essentially now, the are POW’s and can remain prisoners until the War on Terror is over, which is never, so really, is this a victory for those who like to see these men processed? No it is not…

    The opinion should have mentioned nothing of the Geneva convention, if anything it should have just denied the militay tribunals based on the lack of congressional authority, but throwing in that tidbit now causes a conflict between the courts authority and the legislative and executive branches…

    This will be interesting…my opinion is now no one gets anywhere, the prisoners remain locked up, no trials, no nothing….truly limbo…

    Posted 29 Jun 2006 at 1:09 pm ¶

12. Ken wrote:

    I’m on vacation and missed the news - is there a reason why the Chief Justice didn’t sign on to either the majority or the dissent?

    Posted 29 Jun 2006 at 1:54 pm ¶

13. matt wrote:

    is there a reason why the Chief Justice didn’t sign on to either the majority or the dissent?

    he already ruled on this case at the circuit level, and can’t rule again on the same case.

    Posted 29 Jun 2006 at 1:58 pm ¶

14. sarabeth wrote:

    Reuters:

    The ninth member of the court, Chief Justice John Roberts, also appointed by Bush, removed himself because he was on the U.S. appeals court panel that ruled for the Bush administration in Hamdan’s case.

    Posted 29 Jun 2006 at 2:00 pm ¶

15. Ken wrote:

    And there it is. Thanks, folks.

    Posted 29 Jun 2006 at 8:26 pm ¶

Post a Comment