Supreme Court Rules 5-3: No Military Tribunals, Bush Overstepped Authority
Posted on June 29, 2006
Just in from SCOTUS Blog
The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Congress did not take away the Court’s authority to rule on the military commissions’ validity, and then went ahead to rule that President Bush did not have authority to set up the tribunals at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and found the “military commissions” illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva Convention. The vote was 5-3, with the Chief Justice not taking part.
Standby for impeachment calls and an ACLU victory dance!
Update: That didn’t take long!
In a sharp rebuke to the Bush administration, the United States Supreme Court today ruled 5-3 that the military commissions system established by President Bush to try detainees at Guantánamo Bay is unfair and illegal. The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, applauded the decision.
“Today’s decision is a victory for the rule of law in the United States,” said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. “The Supreme Court has made clear that the executive branch does not have a blank check in the war on terror and may not run roughshod over the nation’s legal system. This decision moves us one step closer to stopping the abuse of power that has become the hallmark of this White House. Now that the Supreme Court has issued its decision, the president should make good on his promise and close Guantánamo.”
Andy McCarthy predicted it, and has a good summary of how most of us feel.
[I]t seems like there’s a prevailing view that if — as expected — the decision comes out in favor of Hamdan, the theory will be that al Qaeda does have Geneva Convention protections.
Make no mistake: if this happens, the Supreme Court will have dictated that we now have a treaty with al Qaeda — which no President, no Senate, and no vote of the American people would ever countenance. (Compare this.) The Constitution consigns treaty-making to the political branches, not the courts, but a conclusion that Geneva protects Hamdan (and, by extension, his fellow savages) would ominously mean that the courts, under the conveniently malleable guise of “customary international law” can rewrite treaties to mean whatever they like them to mean.
If I were Bush, I’m not sure I’d follow this part of Andrew McCarthy’s advice or not.
If the Supreme Court of the United States really takes it upon itself to extend Geneva Convention Rights to terrorists and illegal combatants, George W. Bush ought to take Andrew Jackson’s position, and tell Justice Stevens to go enforce his own ruling.
That would be bold, but I’m not too sure how smart it would be. There would be no way around the argument that he was knowingly breaking the law at that point. I’m disappointed with this decision, but I’m not sure if this would be the correct way to react.
I’ll start gathering reactions as they come in.
Oak Leaf at Polipundit.
I wasted 12 months of my life in Afgahnistan for this.
Support by the military in the GWOT is going to collapse.
UPDATE: This opinion will go from a ripple to a wave throughout the uniformed military. We were slapped by John McCain last December. Today, we are slapped by the Supreme Court. This afternoon, I am removing myself from the volunteer list at Human Resources Command-St. Louis to re-deploy. I will not be the only one.
Like James Joyner, I’ll am also looking forward to reading Scalia’s dissent.
Maybe we should just release them and hope they have learned their lessons? It may be less dangerous than exposing our defensive programs and efforts in court.
Another Kennedy betrayal, only this time it’s the Kennedy on the Supreme Court - he voted with the Liberals on the Hamdan case. Isn’t it past time for him to retire? Roberts sat out, which wouldn’t have made a difference, given the way Kennedy went on the case.
Al Qaeda terrorists now have ‘protections’ via the Geneva Conventions thanks to the US Supreme Court.
Also see Hot Air
Never Yet Melted
Prairie Pundit
Just One Minute
» Filed Under ACLU, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
8 Responses to “Supreme Court Rules 5-3: No Military Tribunals, Bush Overstepped Authority”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Should be expect that Al Qaeda will play by the rules now?
Should we expect that Al Qaeda will play by the rules now?
“If the Supreme Court of the United States really takes it upon itself to extend Geneva Convention Rights to terrorists and illegal combatants, George W. Bush ought to take Andrew Jackson’s position, and tell Justice Stevens to go enforce his own ruling.”
They said its up to congress to do this.
They have Geneva convention protections? Really? What recognized Nation are they fighting for? What do their uniforms look like? (Both are REQUIRED to be protected as a soldier under the Geneva Convention.)
“(Both are REQUIRED to be protected as a soldier under the Geneva Convention.”
I dont think they’re protected as soldiers.
Terrorism is not a crime. It is an act of war.
“Terrorism is not a crime. It is an act of war.”
If you say so. The courts said that the procedures as set up under the UCMJ, apply the law of war, which includes geneva.
But like I said, I don’t think they’re protected as soldiers.
In order for them to be treated under the Geneva Convention, they are either civilians or soldiers. The Geneva Conventions specifically state that in someone fighting in a war that is in the military of a recognized nation, fighting in a recognizable uniform with recognizable rank insignia, is treated as a soldier. Anyone fighting without being in the army of a nation and without rank insignia is defined as a ’spy’, to be tried by a military tribunal (usually a field level court martial) and the usual penalty is execution. Today, we use the term ‘illegal combatant’, but the Geneva convention says they are spies.
Both the Allies and the Axis powers applied these same standard during World War II. Hence why being any kind of proto-Special Forces trooper was dangerous in WW2- and still is.