June 29, 2006

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

Today the Supreme Court said military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees are illegal, violating both US law and the Geneva Conventions.

The case raised core constitutional principles of separation of powers as well as fundamental issues of individual rights. Specifically, the questions concerned:

  • The power of Congress and the executive to strip the federal courts and the Supreme Court of jurisdiction.

  • The authority of the executive to lock up individuals under claims of wartime power, without benefit of traditional protections such as a jury trial, the right to cross-examine one's accusers and the right to judicial appeal.

  • The applicability of international treaties -- specifically the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war -- to the government's treatment of those it deems "enemy combatants."

There are a whole lot of lawyers writing about this today, as you'd expect. Some of them:

Here's the Technorati list of blogs referring to the WaPo story linked above.

Posted by Linkmeister at June 29, 2006 09:36 AM | TrackBack
Comments

It will be interesting, if not a little frightening, to see what the hard results of this turn out to be. I think it was somewhat expected but does this mean we have to release those we cannot prosecute? I am pretty sure it does.

Posted by: DuWayne at June 29, 2006 11:44 AM

I don't think that at all. I think the Court is saying that the trial method the Administration has advocated is unconstitutional; back to the drawing board for them. It did leave Congress an opportunity to try to devise another way, as I understand it, but I'm no lawyer.

Greenwald's one of the better sources for an explanation; he's a Con-Law guy. I'd suggest reading him. He's updated the initial post I linked to.

Posted by: Linkmeister at June 29, 2006 11:51 AM

To amplify: Tribunals don't provide enough due process, the Court said. Regular criminal trials or courts-martial as defined under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) do provide it. Those forms of trial would be legal; the military commisions the Administration has offered as a substitute are not.

Posted by: Linkmeister at June 29, 2006 12:23 PM