As for the decision, I’ll let other more qualified writers explain it to you. These two posts at SCOTUS Blog are pretty clear.
One thing that Marty Lederman points out is that the Administration was wrong in their opinion that certain parts of the Geneva Convention did not apply to the treatment of detainees. Specifically, Article III and its strictures against physical torture as well as “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” I’m not exactly sure what this means but it seems to me that it could make Bush and Rumsfeld possible war criminals.
If the Court insists that the US government should be following the Geneva convention while all these years the Administration has been practicing interrogation techniques that are now deemed in violation of that Convention, doesn’t that leave the President and the Secretary of Defense liable for their decisions in this regard and make them vulnerable to to prosecution by the World Court?
I hope I’m reading that wrong and if someone could enlighten me, I would appreciate it. Because in the case of charges brought by the World Court (not the World Criminal Court that we are not a party to), I believe Congress would be required to turn any defendants living in this country over for trial. Again, I hope I’m wrong on this but as I see it, this could be a possibility.
All of this could have been avoided if the Administration had been able to get together with Congress and come up with a regime that would have granted detainees certain constitutional rights. Senator Specter held hearings almost exactly a year ago about the hodge-podge nature of detainee rights and how it was hampering justice. At that time, Specter offered to work with the President on the rights of prisoners and procedures for the military reviews that determined whether or not a detainee would face a tribunal. For a variety of reasons (some of them bureaucratic), the Administration refused.
Now the Supremes have forced them to go to Congress anyway. It may be that many of those detainees will now be “repatriated” back to prisons in their own lands and Guantanamo will be closed. No matter how we may think it necessary to hold many of these men, Guantanamo had become an icon over the last few years, a source of friction with our allies and a visible symbol to the Arab press of American “oppression.”
We would do well to rid ourselves of it.
UPDATE: 7/1
Andrew Sullivan asks the exact same question about Bush’s “war crimes” that I did. Maybe I’m not as crazy as I thought.
The fact is, I can see some Euro-lefties pressing the case before the World Court, preventing Bush from leaving the country after his term of office is over. And I wouldn’t put it past some in this country to agitate for handing him over.
But in the end, I suspect that nothing much will happen. There are so many genuine thugs that the Euro-left coddles and strokes that even they couldn’t act so shamelessly.
1:15 pm
HAMDAN COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED
Right Wing Nut HouseAs for the decision, I’ll let other more qualified writers explain it to you. These two posts at SCOTUS Blog are pretty clear.
One thing that Marty Lederman points out is that the Administration was wrong in their opinion th…
1:16 pm
Rick,
How many American’s died to capture these people to garner actionable intelligence? We could have killed these people on the battlefield and now the Supreme Court has usurped the powers of the Commander in Chief. I’m sure they will have a wonderful summer vacation in Europe, awash in praise for their somber guidance.
1:21 pm
Supreme Court Says Guantánamo Bay Military Commissions Are Unconstitutional; ACLU Calls Decision a Victory for the “Rule of Lawâ€
I knew this wouldn’t take long! The ACLU are breaking out the champaign glasses and popping the cork! It is celebration time for the left, as Al Qaeda terrorists now have ‘protections’ via the Geneva Conventions thanks to the US Supreme Co…
1:38 pm
“We would do well to rid ourselves of it.”
After reading some of your takes over the past month I think you need to rename your blog to “Almost, Nearly Rightwing Nuthouse”.
1:46 pm
Does article III speficy the status of beheadings? If not, behead them all and give them their virgins.
1:48 pm
Supreme Court Ruling Enforces Double Standard For Terrorists
In a 5-3 decision, the US Supreme Court has ruled that the Bush administration does not have the authority to try terrorism suspects by military tribunal. The New York Times reports: The Supreme Court today delivered a sweeping rebuke to
2:23 pm
Rick,
I don’t see where it gave Geneva Conventions coverage to members of Club GITMO, only that Article 3’s “laws of war” incorporation with military justice conforms to that language.
2:43 pm
This ruling is unconstitutional? For all intents and purposes, the Supreme
Court has entered into a treaty with a foreign, non-governmental entity.
The constitution expressly gives this authority to the President and congress.
Also this sets up a constitutional crisis because congress
passed the Detainee Treatment act which expressly
said that no court, justice or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider
`(1) an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; or
`(2) any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention by the Department of Defense of an alien at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who—
`(A) is currently in military custody; or
`(B) has been determined by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant.’
I believe the president should follow the actions of Andrew Jackson and tell
Justice Stevens to stick it were the sun don’t shine.
2:56 pm
Odds, Ends7
1) After fighting off a nasty case of internal Turkish log infestation (and we all know how painful that can be) The Jawa Report is now back up and running. 2) Via The New Editor, the ultimate in preemptive excuse making / paranoid conspiracy mongering…
2:57 pm
Excuse me but when did the terrorist towel heads become signatories to the Geneva Conventions?
I do think it was a tactical error on the part of the Bush administration to let the rest of the planet know that we had prisoners…
3:14 pm
In reading the decision, I find that the real issue here is that involving the courts or military tribunals. Stevens writes:
“We have assumed, as we must, that the allegations made in the Government’s charge against Hamdan are true. We have assumed, moreover, the truth of the message implicit in that charge —viz., that Hamdan is a dangerous individual whose beliefs, if acted upon, would cause great harm and even death to innocent civilians, and who would act upon those beliefs if given the opportunity. It bears emphasizing that Hamdan does not challenge, and we do not today address, the Government’s power to detain him for the duration of active hostilities in order to prevent such harm. But in undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in this jurisdiction.â€
The reader’s digest version of the above is simple. So long as you do not torture them or try them, the court does not care where you keep these people. Keep them as long as the war lasts and you got no problem with us.
So that makes it simple – until Al Qaeda surrenders and the war is over you can put them behind bars and throw away the keys.
4:42 pm
Rick – you need to stay away from the leftist blogs. Remember when you read thought Bush was going to be charged with obstruction of justice and perjury by Fitzgerald for something or other. Calm down.
This order clarifies and give options to the Bush Administration to deal with these dangerous detainees.
How ironic if Bush escaped the executioner on Plame only to fame him on GITMO.
5:04 pm
From the Majority Opinion
Although the official commentaries accompanying Common Article 3 indicate that an important purpose of the provision was to furnish minimal protection to rebels involved in one kind of “conflict not of an international character,â€
Common Article 3, then, is applicable here and, as indicated above, requires that Hamdan be tried by a “regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.â€
It is not giving blanket Geneva Convention protections, just the Article 3 adjudication.
7:30 pm
To think that the owner of “RightWingNuthouse” would be championing Arlan Spector, and wanting CONSTITUTIONAL rights for terror detainees at Gitmo just blows my mind. Who cares if out erstwhile “allies” don’t like Gitmo? How can any American trust the Congress to really protect us? President Bush is the ONLY one who has constantly made that his main goal. There’s too many liberals and RINO’s there to do the job right, and too much Bush hate in congress to really trust them. How many secrets have been leaked or confirmed by the Dems? I’m shocked and disappointed that I had to read this stuff on your website. But then again, you occasionally do seem to like thinking the worst of this President. War Crime charges against the President? A Daily KOS dream.
7:32 pm
Dennis Prager: “As is true of most the Left’s values, this ideal of favoring the little guy in a courtroom runs directly counter to a basic Judeo-Christian value. Exodus 23:3 expressly prohibits it: “Do not favor the poor man in his grievance.” – “The Left hates inequality, not injustice”
...
C.S. Lewis: “Only liberal societies tolerate Pacifists. In the liberal society, the number of Pacifists will either be large enough to cripple the state as a belligerent, or not. If not, you have done nothing. If it is large enough, then you have handed over the state which does tolerate Pacifists to its totalitarian neighbor who does not. Pacifism of this kind is taking the straight road to a world in which there will be no Pacifists.” – “Why I am not a Pacifist”
...
“Sic Semper Tyrannis” – “Thus Always to Tyrants,” Virginia state motto,
1776.
11:58 pm
Rick, you could not be more wrong. Closing down Gitmo will not end the Arab voices proclaiming, “Oppression, oppression!” The ACLU will not stop harping about the “discrimination” or “social justice” or the latest anti-American fad even if every terrorist in Gitmo were given a fair and impartial trial by jury. They would simply find another stick with which to beat the United States.
The very core of this matter is that either we are morally justified in holding enemy combatants as long as there is an enemy, or we are not. I believe that not only are we justified in doing so, but it would be criminally neglectful for a sitting president during a war to believe otherwise. Perhaps the Legislative and Executive branches have not satisfactorily worked out the details of these barbarians’ confinement, but they are both agreed that they should be confined. If the high court demands that these savages deserve the same privileges as civilized men, the Executive branch has a duty to a higher law – far older than any international law – than the Supreme Court. If Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer cannot see the common sense in that, well then, I hope that Bush has the common sense to tell them to pound sand.
12:04 am
If they are given GC coverage they can rot in gitmo until teh war on terror ends, as they woul then be POWs…..right?
3:47 am
Bush a war criminal??? give me a break. It is probably not much fun for anyone to be taken as a POW, but they are treated ok. Our guys get their heads cut off.
7:22 am
If Bush falls in this global battle, our country is truly doomed. It will be the end of the Executive’s power to defend our nation, and the legislature is incapable of addressing issues of any importance, much less issues of defense.
The sad thing is, half the populace would cheer.
7:56 am
The author of this blog has committed the greatest crime – questioning the authority of Dear Leader and look how his fellow right-wingers turn on him. You either always agree or you are a want the terrorists to win! Where is your loyalty?
8:00 am
Aric:
I realize how hard it is for you to comprehend, but disagreement is welcome on this site – as long as its intelligent and thoughtful.
This, of course, lets you out as you are neither intelligent or carry a single thought in your empty head.
10:12 am
[...] Let’s start out with the impeccable Rick Moran who posts with HAMDAN COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED in which he states If the Court insists that the US government should be following the Geneva convention while all these years the Administration has been practicing interrogation techniques that are now deemed in violation of that Convention, doesn’t that leave the President and the Secretary of Defense liable for their decisions in this regard and make them vulnerable to to prosecution by the World Court? [...]
10:18 am
The Supremes
Con una decisione a maggioranza (5-3 con l’astensione di John Roberts che si era già espresso pubblicamente sul caso), la Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti ha stabilito che a Guantanamo l’amministrazione Bush ha violato la legge americana e la Convenzi…
8:28 pm
oAeDj6w2rj K158AYoSnY2R Yagvpo2HUD