June 29, 2006
Beating Back Ideology
In Rebuke for Bush, Court Block Trials at Guantanamo
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.The ruling, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and international Geneva conventions.
The case focused on Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who worked as a bodyguard and driver for Osama bin Laden. Hamdan, 36, has spent four years in the U.S. prison in Cuba. He faces a single count of conspiring against U.S. citizens from 1996 to November 2001.
Two years ago, the court rejected Bush's claim to have the authority to seize and detain terrorism suspects and indefinitely deny them access to courts or lawyers. In this follow-up case, the justices focused solely on the issue of trials for some of the men.
The vote was split 5-3, with moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joining the court's liberal members in ruling against the Bush administration. Chief Justice John Roberts, named to the lead the court last September by Bush, was sidelined in the case because as an appeals court judge he had backed the government over Hamdan.
Thursday's ruling overturned that decision.
Chalk one up for the rule of law, which hasn't had a very good 5 and 1/2 years.
Posted by Melanie at June 29, 2006 10:28 AM | TrackBackBut it didn't take long for the cowpie to act:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Bush.html?_r=1&oref;=slogin
The modus operandi of King George IV, when faced with what would attempt to check his power, seems usually to be to just ignore what he doesn't like and do what he wants to do, and he gets little opposition from the Congress. I'll be most interested to observe how this case shakes out. My optimism ain't high. Perhaps Arlen Specter can help him out by changing the law so he's not breaking it.
I just went over to the article cited by jreed above. jreed has it right. Nothing much is gonna change. Bush will no more heed supreme court justices than he heeds congress. He's above the law, don'tcha know.
Further re Arlen Specter: Tonight on "Countdown" Dana Milbank voiced what has been my own impression -- "He writes letters and calls for hearings, but in every case he's come around to the president's point of view." Milbank also feels that Congress just wants to be consulted, kept in the loop, and they will do the prez's bidding. I bet they will.
"Chalk one up for the rule of law..."
Actually, again you are so wrong:
From Ex parte Quirin; 1942:
" the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."
From Johnson Vs. Eisentager; 1950:
" Modern American law has come a long way since the time when outbreak of war made every enemy national an outlaw, subject to both public and private slaughter, cruelty and plunder. But even by the most magnanimous view, our law does not abolish inherent distinctions recognized throughout the civilized world between citizens and aliens, nor between aliens of friendly and of enemy allegiance, nor between resident enemy aliens who have submitted themselves to our laws and non-resident enemy aliens who at all times have remained with, and adhered to, enemy governments.
But, in extending constitutional protections beyond the citizenry, the Court has been at pains to point out that it was the alien's presence within its territorial jurisdiction that gave the Judiciary power to act.
If this [Fifth] Amendment invests enemy aliens in unlawful hostile action against us with immunity from military trial, it puts them in a more protected position than our own soldiers.
We hold that the Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or an immunity from military trial and punishment upon an alien enemy engaged in hostile service.
It is not for us to say whether these prisoners were or were not guilty of a war crime, or whether if we were to retry the case we would agree to the findings of fact or the application of the laws of war made by the Military Commission. The petition shows that these prisoners were formally accused of violating the laws of war and fully informed of particulars of these charges...."
From Acticle 5 of the Geneva Convention:
"Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention."
Sorry, but under any standard of Law, irregulars and saboteurs have no such rights, under any set of laws....and the Supremes have no jurisdiction:
From "The Detention of Enemy Combatants Act" March 3, 2005:
" (11) Section 4001(a) of title 18, United States Code, provides that `no citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress'. Section 4001 was designed to repeal the Emergency Detention Act of 1950, and ensure that there was a statutory basis for any detention. As Chief Justice Burger wrote in Howe v. Smith, 452 U.S. 473 (1981), `the plain language of section 4001(a) proscribes detention of any kind by the United States, absent a congressional grant of authority to detain'.
(12) By this Act, the Congress authorizes the President to detain enemy combatants who are United States persons or residents who are members of al Qaeda, or knowingly cooperated with members of al Qaeda in the planning, authorizing, committing, aiding, or abetting of one or more terrorist acts against the United States.
If you would bother to do a little research, you would also note that, as is it's pervue, Congress specifically removed any jurisdiction from the Supreme court over disposition of the detainees.....
So, we have a court that has ignored it's own historical rulings AND Congress......
BUT.... I know, I know; I'm just some ignorant sack of rocks....
Tom, as far as I can tell, this ruling was about the roles of the Legislative and Executive branches. It isn't about the rights of the accused, it is about who gets to decide what those rights are.
And then there is the tired Geneva Convention argument, that these guys aren't entitled to POW status - POW status is a rather high level of rights, the fact that someone doesn't qualify for it does not mean that person is utterly without rights. A convicted criminal does not have the same rights as a free person, but that does not mean a criminal has no rights at all.
Mike:
"Tom, as far as I can tell, this ruling was about the roles of the Legislative and Executive branches. It isn't about the rights of the accused, it is about who gets to decide what those rights are."
Before you do that, you have to determine what type of class these folks are. They are alien irregulars. These folks were captured on the battlefield as spies and saboteurs. The wore no uniforms and used the population to hide behind.
Nobody is saying that these folks don't have rights...if you read the citations I posted you will note a couple of points:
A. By it's own previous admission, the Supremes have no jusidiction over alien detainees, covered under the Geneva Convention or otherwise.
B. That a military tribunal is a legitimate forum for trying alien combatants...especially irregulars (terrorists).
"And then there is the tired Geneva Convention argument, that these guys aren't entitled to POW status - POW status is a rather high level of rights, the fact that someone doesn't qualify for it does not mean that person is utterly without rights."
C. Tired or not; when you go about the business of sabotage and spying and you are captured, you forfeit the rights of a POW, AND ARE SUBJECT TO TRIAL BY MILITARY TRIBUNAL.....go read it, I'm not making this up; it's there for you to read. No interpetation required...it's spelled out in plain language. I'm sorry you don't like it, but it is what it is. The original premise was that the rule of law wasn't being followed...not that you don't LIKE the laws.
D. By statute the Supreme Court is barred from even certifying a suit regarding the disposition of detainees, let alone making a ruling. Again, I'm not arguing; it's fact...go read it for yourself.
If you actually go read the suit and the ruling, based on PRECEDENT AND STATUTE, the Supremes had no business even sticking there noses in here. There is a significant body of historical and legal precedent for handling these folks, and it was being followed. Sorry you don't LIKE it.
But that is a separate issue.
How did people fighting in their own country to defend their govenment against an insurrection and invasion get to be "alien irregulars"?
How did people fighting in their own country to defend their govenment against an insurrection and invasion get to be "alien irregulars"?
How did people fighting in their own country to defend their govenment against an insurrection and invasion get to be "alien irregulars"?
n Laden's driver/bodyguard was " people fighting in their own country to defend their govenment against an insurrection and invasion"? Coulda fooled me,'cause that's who this suit was about. He's Yemeni, captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan..... Please don't play fast and loose with the facts.
And, I'm sorry, but if you wish to portray this yahoo as a "partisan" fighter; well, they ARE "irregulars" by definition. Sorry the facts don't suit your prejudices.
