In the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court has decided, by a 5 to 3 vote, that the Bush administration’s military commission’s, set up to try alleged terrorists, are illegal. The Court basically determined that the Bush administration has 3 options: 1) Try the accused under the Uniform Code of Military Justice; 2) Try the accused in a federal court; or 3) Go to Congress and get them to provide the authority to try the accused in the manner desired by the President. That analysis would change if the trial were under emergency conditions.
The Court also held that certain minimum provisions of the Geneva Conventions apply to purported al Qaeda members captured by the United States military. Specifically,
in a ‘conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties [i.e., signatories],each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum,â€certain provisions protecting “[p]ersons . . . placed hors de combat by. . . detention,†including a prohibition on “the passing of sentences . . . without previous judgment . . . by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees . . . recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.’
The Bush administration argued that the fight against al Qaeda was international in character. The Court retorted that, “international” means “between nations,” and therefore the fight against al Qaeda is not “international,” and this minimal protection required by the Geneva Conventions applies.
It’s quite a slap in the face when the Supreme Court that you and your dad appointed (at least you appointed the controlling members) says that you went too far AS PRESIDENT IN TIME OF WAR. For the 74 people who still haven’t figured it out, this may be a good illustration of how criminally far W has gone over the line.
I’m not engaging at hyperbole when I say that these trials by military commission cut at the foundations of our nation. Judicial review might be the most critical bulwark of democracy. You can have a Constitution and elections, but without an independent party enforcing the limitations imposed by the Constitution, it’s just so much paper.
From ACSBlog:
Justice Thomas refers to Justice Stevens’ “unfamiliarity with the realities of warfareâ€; but Stevens served in the U.S. Navy from 1942 to 1945, during World War II. Thomas’s official bio, by contrast, contains no experience of military service.
Which is it? When military personnel support the war effort, we are supposed to excuse their opinions because they’ve been brainwashed. However, when they go the other way, we’re supposed to hold their opinions in high esteem because they have served.
ACSBlog, I’m not saying you’re doing this necessarily. Please don’t take it that way. I’m talking about the left in general.
Chris, I’m not sure that’s the point – I think that “the left in general” is frustrated when someone who has never served in the military accuses a veteran of “unfamiliarity with the realities of warfare.” We have a president who was able to skedaddle out of military service but who is more than willing to put others in harm’s way.
Even Bush has more standing to make such a statement than Thomas does.
In fact, of all the Supreme Court justices, ONLY Stevens has served in the armed forces.
O’Connor and Rehnquist didn’t serve either, so Stevens is in fact the only veteran to have sat on the Supreme Court in quite some time.
Chris: I don’t think what Thomas said had much to do with left v. right. I think he had some gall accusing a veteran of being unfamiliar with the realities of warfare. A veteran of World War II would be familiar with the realities of warfare. Someone who has not served in the military at all would not be and thus has no right making such a mean-spirited statement to someone who has.