Supreme Court says Bush went too far at Guantanamo

June 29, 2006

Today’s [tag]Supreme Court[/tag] ruling in the [tag]Hamdan[/tag] case was an encouraging development for a couple of reasons. One is the obvious limit on the president’s desire to expand his war powers; the other is a setback for court stripping. It may even have implications on torture.

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 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.

Bush was asking for quite a bit here. He wanted the power to hold prisoners as “[tag]enemy combatants[/tag],” instead of prisoners of war; he wanted to deny them the protections of the U.S. criminal justice system, including the right to counsel; and he wanted the administration to oversee its own secret tribunals. Oh, and the protections of the [tag]Geneva Conventions [/tag]don’t apply. All of this, apparently, was a bit too much for five justices. (Alito, Scalia, and Thomas were in the minority; Roberts recused himself because he ruled on the case on a lower court.)

Also, after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Hamdan case, Bush signed a measure to prohibit the court from considering it. As Lyle Denniston explained, justices weren’t going for that, either.

As for torture, Marty Lederman suggests that the high court’s ruling regarding the Geneva Conventions suggests that “the CIA’s interrogation regime is unlawful, and indeed, that many techniques the Administation has been using, such as waterboarding and hypothermia (and others) violate the War Crimes Act (because violations of Common Article 3 are deemed war crimes).”

All in all, a good day for the rule of law.

What is happening here? There seems to be a wave of sanity moving toward America.

Good for everyone (except Bush) and shame on Alito, Scalia and Thomas, not that I expected any more from them.

Anyone know what happens next? Will the Congress be emboldened to do it’s Constitutional duty?

  • The always-excellent SCOTUSBlog says:

    More importantly, the Court held that Common Article 3 of Geneva aplies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today’s ruling. The commissions are the least of it. This basically resolves the debate about interrogation techniques, because Common Article 3 provides that detained persons “shall in all circumstances be treated humanely,” and that “[t]o this end,” certain specified acts “are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever”—including “cruel treatment and torture,” and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” This standard, not limited to the restrictions of the due process clause, is much more restrictive than even the McCain Amendment.

    Lady Justice owes John Paul Stevens a kiss on the cheek today. And the American People owe him a great debt of gratitude.

  • Scalia always gets two votes because Thomas was taken from his parents at birth and raised by Republicans.

  • It will be interesting to see what the next step is going to be. Bush has been overseas explaining he’d like to close Guantanomo but he was waiting for the Supreme Court to issue a ruling. Now that it isn’t in his favor, will he abide by it?

  • And now … will Bush try his signing statement crap with the big boys?
    I think he can’t help himself , bein the rootin tootin outlaw cowjoke that he is. But also, that if we are forced to follow the rule of law, many of the detainees cannot be brought to trial due to violations of civil rights.

    So when Bush leans on the Supreme Court, will the men in black push back? John Roberts is about to discover what it feels like to be opposing President Bush.

  • Bush has been overseas explaining he’d like to close Guantanomo but he was waiting for the Supreme Court to issue a ruling. Now that it isn’t in his favor, will he abide by it?
    prm

    HAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Dude, that was a good one!

  • Sometime, somewhere, somebody is just going to have to refuse to take an order from Bush to stop Boy George II.

    Until that happens, neither Congress nor the Supreme Court is going to get anywhere.

  • Bush and Cheney have been willing to take on both Congress and the Intelligence agencies in their quest to increase the power of the executive so I would be surprised if they don’t take on the Supreme court as well.

    However, I found the decision confusing. I’m going to need someone to explain what it really means. I think that there many subtle threads here.

  • I’m thrilled about the ruling, but not so thrilled about the split. Had the chief not recussed himself, it would have been 5-4, with Kennedy slightly on the fence.

    A divided court on essentially the trappings of complete dictatorship is not encouraging. It is hard to believe that this is the same body that managed to go 9-0 on an important race ruling.

    On the other hand, stupid slimebags are not completely new to the court – just look at the early rulings on eugenics. So I guess I should just be happy that complete fucking morons are still marginally outnumbered today.

    -jjf

  • NeilS: I think what it means is that if Bush gets any more Supreme Court justices to appoint, we’re going to be doing the Nazi salute.

  • Two words: Andrew Jackson. Dare he ignore the court’s decision? If he does, he’ll be putting a lot of pressure on a lot of rubber-stamp republicants.

  • It’s good to see someone with real authority slap back at King Idiot a little. Now if only more members of Congress would grow some balls and really cut Dubya down to size.

  • I get annoyed when I hear people arguing whether the Bush administration is “conservative” or “neocon” or “fascist” or whatever. There’s only one word for this administration: “imperialist”.

    Emperors have no political philosophy or policy – they simply assume the right to rule. The press gave the Nixon administration (of relatively happy memory) the nickname “imperial presidency” mostly on the basis of style – those operetta uniforms on the White House guards, e.g.. Bush really is “imperialist”. It’s part of his family’s traditional belief in their right to rule and our right to appreciate their royal backsides.

  • Ed Stephan is right. Though I would suggest that the Bush family approach is more feudal. Cheney has pushed the administration towards an imperial presidency.

    At the same time the adminstration has developed an imperial attitude towards the american people because of its imperial activities abroad. This was noted by anti-imperialists during the Spanish-American war (Gompers, Wm. Sumner, Carl Schurz etc.) and again during the Vietnam War.

    Its all part of the ‘your with us or against us’ attitude.

  • The SCOTUS ruling now indicates that this current administration’s actions are not in line with the Geneva Conventions. Kid George now has three options—either (1) get into compliance with Article 3, or (2) ignore Article 3 and face the label of “war criminal” from the international community, or (3) unilaterally withdraw from the Conventions completely. He’s right between the rock and the hard place on this one. (1) leaves his entire “super-secret-plan” open to public review and ridicule—and might expose the Oval Office and its partners-in-crime to an untenable number of criminal investigations, both domestically and internationally. (2) exposes Bush and his cromies to international justice that cannot be wiped away by “signing statements” or “presidential pardons.” (3) completely demolishes his “coalition of the willing” and leaves the Pentagon in the dangerous position of fighting two wars without any assistance from other nations. It also wipes out Bush’s credibility with the government in Baghdad. It places the US in the position of being a rogue state, and its actions under the defining principles of “state sponsored terror.”

    This one could blow up in Bush’s face, and leave lasting scars….

  • Bush vows to pursue detainee war trials
    AP – 2 hours, 34 minutes ago
    WASHINGTON – After a Supreme Court decision overruling war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees, President Bush suggested Thursday he would seek Congress’ approval to proceed with trying terrorism suspects before military tribunals. “To the extent that there is latitude to work with the Congress to determine whether or not the military tribunals will be an avenue in which to give people their day in court, we will do so,” he said.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060629/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_9;_ylt=AktDiczdwxKWXedOfy_8t0I3NiUi;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

  • As is always the case on matter of law ,Glenn Greenwald’s take on today’s SCOTUS decision is worth reading. Most of what he writes is in line with what other have already written. However, he disagrees with Marty Ledermann on the whether the decision speaks to the issue of CIA prison (See point #6).Read of the decision says the the CIA prison would not be violate the principles of this decision. He also extends the analysis to the impact of the decision on the Yoo theory of executive power.(See point #7). He concludes that this is a death blow to that theory.

  • Fitz @ 10. Are you THE Fitz? If Bush gets to name another nominee to SCOTUS, the Democrats better be prepared to face Frist’s “nuclear option”. I could see how Roberts fooled them all, but Scalito? I remember Feinstein approving him in committee even though “he never answered my questions”. Just as scary to me as the Bush nominees are, so are the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee.

  • While CB likely knows this already, I think everyone else would like to know that CB was mentioned in Slate today.

    “Today’s Supreme Court ruling in the Hamdan case was an encouraging development for a couple of reasons. One is the obvious limit on the president’s desire to expand his war powers; the other is a setback for court stripping,” writes Democratic political consultant Steve Benen at Carpetbagger Report. “

  • “Slate” is a WashPo “on-line organ”, innit? I keep thinking I’ll go and visit it one day (read the selection in the — hard copy — Sunday “Outlook”), ’cause it looks like good stuff. But there are only 24hrs in each day and “life interferes”… 🙂

    I didn’t know you were a “political consultant”, CB (who to?), but I’m sure glad my son sicced me onto this site; the posts and the discussions (both) are great, with more reason than heat showing, despite true emotional engagement.

    Good on ya, CB!

  • Glenn Greenwald continues to look at yesterday’s decision. Today, amongst other things he considers what the conservative response will be.

    …Among most Bush followers purporting to condemn this decision as an act of judicial tyranny, you won’t find any discussion of those legal issues, because they know nothing about them and don’t care about them.

    All they know is that the Court reached a result they don’t like, and worse, it is a result the contradicted the President’s will, so it is, by definition, the by-product of pro-terrorist judicial activism….

    Analytical Liberal also has a post up at Unclaimed Territory about the implication of yesterday’s decision for the Addington/Yoo theory of executive power.

  • I would be cautious in calling this a victory.

    I think that nearly every Justice wrote his/her own opinion. It could have been 5-4 if Roberts had also voted. It couild change if Bush appoints another Justice.

    Its not clear that Geneva conventions are necessarily to be respected.

    Congress could write legislation legitimizing military tribunals.

    Its not clear that Bush/Cheney will respect the decision. After all, what would the courts do if the President chose to interpret the decision ‘within the constraints of a unitary executive exercising his war powers’ in the same way that he has interpreted laws that Congress has passed with signing statements.

    There are many miles to go before we sleep.

  • Another tidbit about the military tribunals. Even when they do occur, apparently no effort is made to round up the witnesses that the accused have to supply to prove themselves innocent.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,1809981,00.html

    The thrust of the story is that the Guardian managed to track down, in 3 days, 3 of the 4 witnesses asked for by one of the detainees in Guantanamo. The government was unable to find them. The paper was unable to contact the fourth witness, as he was dead. Oops.

    That’s my tangent for the afternoon.

  • I loved the decision. Combined with Kelo (and the same senile ridden fools who passed that decision) guarantees the Court is going to be changed and that its imperialism will no longer be tolerated.

    Watch for immediate retreat on many issues by the senile five as the American people express their displeasure.

    • Comments are closed.