BREAKING NEWS: USSC Deals Blow To Administration Over Hamdan
This comes from Yahoo News:
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.
Bush spokesman Tony Snow said the White House would have no comment until lawyers had had a chance to review the decision. Officials at the Pentagon and Justice Department were planning to issue statements later in the day.
The administration had hinted in recent weeks that it was prepared for the court to set back its plans for trying Guantanamo detainees.
The president also has told reporters, "I'd like to close Guantanamo." But he added, "I also recognize that we're holding some people that are darn dangerous."
The court's ruling says nothing about whether the prison should be shut down, dealing only with plans to put detainees on trial.
"Trial by military commission raises separation-of-powers concerns of the highest order," Kennedy wrote in his opinion. ...
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a strongly worded dissent, saying the court's decision would "sorely hamper the president's ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy."
The court's willingness, Thomas said, "to second-guess the determination of the political branches that these conspirators must be brought to justice is both unprecedented and dangerous."
Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito also filed dissents.
In his own opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer said, "Congress has not issued the executive a 'blank check.'"
"Indeed, Congress has denied the president the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary," Breyer wrote.
As this decision is only about 30 minutes old, I haven't had a chance to read it in its entirety. I've skimmed it. I'll be giving it a good once over later today, and I'll probably have more on it either tonight or early tomorrow. I agree with Justice Thomas that the president--as commander in chief--should be allowed a level of leeway when it comes to things of this nature. The military is, after all, under his control, not Congress's. Congress doesn't convene military tribunals, the military does. Justice Kennedy is correct that this comes down to a separation of powers, and it's clear he's missing the overall point.
The point is simple: The executive wages and controls the conduct of the war. If there are prisoners taken on the battlefield, then they should be subject to military tribunals. The president can call for them, and the military can convene them. Congress, technically, has no say in this matter. They have two jobs during this war: Oversight committees work to make sure things go smoothly, and to fund the war. That's it. That's the extent of their job. And to correct Justice Breyer (fool that he is), it was NEVER insinuated that Congress gave the president any sort of 'blank check' in this war. To the contrary, they have been nothing but a pain in his backside for much of the war. That hardly constitutes a 'blank check.'
Lastly, the court also cited the Geneva Convention. I'm scratching my head over this one because under the Fourth Geneva Convention, the status of prisoners of war were clearly laid out. Based on that definition, these men are clearly not POWs, yet they receive treatment that is equal to that status. I can't understand why the USSC fell back on the Geneva Convention rather than maintaining the powers of the executive branch during a time of war. (I'm sure I'll find out answers to many of our impending questions when I read through the decision.)
Publius II
This comes from Yahoo News:
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.
Bush spokesman Tony Snow said the White House would have no comment until lawyers had had a chance to review the decision. Officials at the Pentagon and Justice Department were planning to issue statements later in the day.
The administration had hinted in recent weeks that it was prepared for the court to set back its plans for trying Guantanamo detainees.
The president also has told reporters, "I'd like to close Guantanamo." But he added, "I also recognize that we're holding some people that are darn dangerous."
The court's ruling says nothing about whether the prison should be shut down, dealing only with plans to put detainees on trial.
"Trial by military commission raises separation-of-powers concerns of the highest order," Kennedy wrote in his opinion. ...
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a strongly worded dissent, saying the court's decision would "sorely hamper the president's ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy."
The court's willingness, Thomas said, "to second-guess the determination of the political branches that these conspirators must be brought to justice is both unprecedented and dangerous."
Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito also filed dissents.
In his own opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer said, "Congress has not issued the executive a 'blank check.'"
"Indeed, Congress has denied the president the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary," Breyer wrote.
As this decision is only about 30 minutes old, I haven't had a chance to read it in its entirety. I've skimmed it. I'll be giving it a good once over later today, and I'll probably have more on it either tonight or early tomorrow. I agree with Justice Thomas that the president--as commander in chief--should be allowed a level of leeway when it comes to things of this nature. The military is, after all, under his control, not Congress's. Congress doesn't convene military tribunals, the military does. Justice Kennedy is correct that this comes down to a separation of powers, and it's clear he's missing the overall point.
The point is simple: The executive wages and controls the conduct of the war. If there are prisoners taken on the battlefield, then they should be subject to military tribunals. The president can call for them, and the military can convene them. Congress, technically, has no say in this matter. They have two jobs during this war: Oversight committees work to make sure things go smoothly, and to fund the war. That's it. That's the extent of their job. And to correct Justice Breyer (fool that he is), it was NEVER insinuated that Congress gave the president any sort of 'blank check' in this war. To the contrary, they have been nothing but a pain in his backside for much of the war. That hardly constitutes a 'blank check.'
Lastly, the court also cited the Geneva Convention. I'm scratching my head over this one because under the Fourth Geneva Convention, the status of prisoners of war were clearly laid out. Based on that definition, these men are clearly not POWs, yet they receive treatment that is equal to that status. I can't understand why the USSC fell back on the Geneva Convention rather than maintaining the powers of the executive branch during a time of war. (I'm sure I'll find out answers to many of our impending questions when I read through the decision.)
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 8:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home