[GermanBJJ]

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.

The ruling, a strong 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.

The ruling raises major questions about the legal status of about 450 men still being held at Guantanamo and exactly how, when and where the administration might pursue the charges against them.

It also seems likely to further fuel international criticism of the administration, including by many U.S. allies, for its handling of the terror war detainees at Guantanamo in Cuba, Abu Ghraib in Iraq and elsewhere.

Two years ago, the court rejected Bush's claim that he had 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 most of the 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.

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 separate opinion. "Concentration of power (in the executive branch) puts personal liberty in peril of arbitrary action by officials, an incursion the Constitution's three-part system is designed to avoid."

The prison at Guantanamo Bay, erected in the months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States, has been a flash point for international criticism. Hundreds of people suspected of ties to al-Qaida and the Taliban — including some teenagers — have been swept up by the U.S. military and secretly shipped there since 2002.

Three detainees committed suicide there this month, using sheets and clothing to hang themselves. The deaths brought new scrutiny and criticism of the prison, along with fresh calls for its closing.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a strongly worded dissent and took the unusual step of reading part of it from the bench — something he had never done before in his 15 years. He said 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 wrote in the dissent, "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 separate 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.

The court's ruling was a resounding loss for the Bush administration. Justices also rejected the administration's claim that the case should be thrown out on grounds that a new law stripped their authority to consider it.

"It's certainly a nail in the coffin for the idea that the president can set up these trials," said Barbara Olshansky, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents about 300 Guantanamo detainees.

Hamdan claims the military commissions established by the Pentagon on Bush's orders are flawed because they violate basic military justice protections.

Hamdan says he is innocent and worked as a driver for bin Laden in Afghanistan only to eke out a living for his family.

The case is Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 05-184.
________________________

I actually disagree with the Court's ruling. From my Constitutional understanding, the President has historically had almost absolute power and control over military activities (including the military trials of non-citizen enemies) during times of war.

I don't know where the SCOTUS came up with this ruling. Anyone care to comment?

[B. Goetz 7]

I don't have any idea how they might have come to that conclusion. Seems like it at least partially has something to do with the US's obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

Any idea what would be the next step for those who are trying to shut down the camps? This ruling doesn't automatically mean that the prisoners will be released (or charged via the civillian legal system), from what I understand. So what does it take? Legislation from Congress, further ruling of SCOTUS, act of law enforcement?

[Stoic1]

Seriously. It is about time.

In case you have forgotten America was formed on the principles of 3 seperate branches of government in a system of checks and balances. If you look at history you see a long trend towards centralization of power in the executive branch. Add into this the continual consolidation of federal government and weakening of the states you will see how the problem compounds itself.

Time for the SC to step up and check that Executive Branch power bullshit. Bush is setting dangerous new trends. I only hope they do more. But with Sandra gone, and Bush's new boy in place I doubt they will.

[GermanBJJ]

Originally Posted by Stoic1

Seriously. It is about time.

In case you have forgotten America was formed on the principles of 3 seperate branches of government in a system of checks and balances. If you look at history you see a long trend towards centralization of power in the executive branch. Add into this the continual consolidation of federal government and weakening of the states you will see how the problem compounds itself.

Time for the SC to step up and check that Executive Branch power bullshit. Bush is setting dangerous new trends. I only hope they do more. But with Sandra gone, and Bush's new boy in place I doubt they will.

Discretion regarding military decisions during a time of war has always been the role of the Executive Branch.

[vaj3k]

Has the bush administration got any ideo of what a fair trial is???? How can these ppl be treated as guilty by bush and described as "killers" when they havent even been tried???? What happened to all the checks and balances that existed in the us constitution! It seems bush has destroyed US democracy and has created this atmosphere of fear and paranoia that allows them to get away with anything!

[vaj3k]

Originally Posted by Stoic1

Seriously. It is about time.

In case you have forgotten America was formed on the principles of 3 seperate branches of government in a system of checks and balances. If you look at history you see a long trend towards centralization of power in the executive branch. Add into this the continual consolidation of federal government and weakening of the states you will see how the problem compounds itself.

Time for the SC to step up and check that Executive Branch power bullshit. Bush is setting dangerous new trends. I only hope they do more. But with Sandra gone, and Bush's new boy in place I doubt they will.

Thank god almighty that someone has a grasp of basic constitutional principles!

[kartaron]

Originally Posted by GermanBJJ

Discretion regarding military decisions during a time of war has always been the role of the Executive Branch.

That was my understanding. I plan on reading the decision, but I cant figure out how they rationalize taking a 200 year old power from the executive branch or how they believe the geneva conventions apply to some of these guys.

[Free like a dog]

Originally Posted by kartaron

That was my understanding. I plan on reading the decision, but I cant figure out how they rationalize taking a 200 year old power from the executive branch or how they believe the geneva conventions apply to some of these guys.

I see your point, but most of them (all?) haven't actually been charged with anything concrete. If they are found guilty of terrorism I might see how Geneva conventions would not apply, but when they are basically prisoners of war those rules should presumably apply.

[Das Uberdog]

"Two years ago, the court rejected Bush's claim that he had authority to seize and detain terrorism suspects and indefinitely deny them access to courts or lawyers."

yep, still doing it.

[computer fogie]

Maybe if more Americans realized that the vast majority of Gitmo prisoners (let's not kid ourselves and call them "detainees") are innocent people turned in to the US military for money, we'd be more rational about their fate.

"According to the Pentagon, 95% of them were not captured by the Americans themselves.

Some 86% were handed over in Afghanistan and Pakistan after a widespread campaign in which big financial bounties were offered in exchange for anyone suspected of links to al-Qaeda and the Taleban.

The US lawyers quote the text of one of the notices the Americans handed out: "Get wealth and power beyond your dreams... You can receive millions of dollars helping the anti-Taleban forces catch al-Qaeda and Taleban murderers.

"This is enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life."

So, according to the figures supplied by the Pentagon, it looks as though more than 440 men out of the total of 517 at Guantanamo were handed over to the Americans in Afghanistan and Pakistan as a direct result of these bounties.


Let's recapitulate briefly. According to the US Department of Defense, only 8% of the prisoners at Guantanamo were al-Qaeda fighters, and only 5% of them were captured by the Americans themselves.

The overwhelming majority of the others were handed over to the Americans by people who could reasonably be called bounty hunters."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4708946.stm