Hamdan v Rumsfeld

The Supreme Court decided that: 1. Afghanistan is a signatory to the Geneva Convention. 2. The war in Afghanistan was not international in nature. That is; it was contained within the borders of one country therefore Geneva Conventions General Article 3 applied . This was done so that the SC majority could claim that the detainees were entitled under Article 3 paragraph D. to “regularly comprised court.” That means a court which would commonly be used in the detaining country. In this case, either US civilian courts or military courts covered under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). It also means that any information gleaned from the defendant by coercion is inadmissible in court. In addition, a defendant has the right to face his accuser in court and may also have access to classified information used in the prosecution.

The Supreme Court also took advantage of an apparently poorly written law, The Detainee Treatment Act, wherein Congress had stated that no US court had jurisdiction over any detainees held in Guantanamo Bay. The SC decided that Hamdan’s case was already in the pipeline when the DTA was passed and therefore did not apply to him.

The Editors at National Review On-Line address the Courts intrusion on DTA.

“To begin with, the Court had no business deciding this case at all. Not only did it target the president’s commander-in-chief authority to determine what is militarily necessary in wartime, it also imperiously slapped down the U.S. Congress. In last December’s Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), Congress — acting on its constitutional prerogative — rescinded the unprecedented jurisdiction that the Supreme Court, in the 2004 Rasul case, had tried claimed over alien enemy combatants captured in wartime and held outside the U.S. (that is, outside the jurisdiction of U.S. courts). This Court, however, acknowledges no limits on its powers — whether imposed by Congress or by the English language, which it had to torture in order to construe the DTA’s unambiguous limitation of its jurisdiction as an invitation to meddle.”

The Court stated that the decision in Hamdan v Rumsfeld did not address constitutional questions but rather was directed at requiring the Bush Administration to comply with US law. It suggested that Congress had the power to change US laws as needed. The Supreme Court also said that this ruling did not impact the Bush Administations authority to continue detaining enemy combatants at Guantanamo. Whether the liberal members of the SC will hold to this opinion is questional. They may be counting on sustained and mounting International pressure to close Guantanamo and treat the war on terror as a police matter.

Republican members of Congress have indicated that they will work with the President to restore the tools he needs to prosecute the GWOT. Essentially, this decision is a skirmish in the on-going battle of left versus right. The left sees George Bush as “King George” constantly aggregating power and authority at the expense of the Legislative and Judiciary Branches. Conservatives see the left as suffering from BDS such that they will say and do anything to thwart King George. This case illustrates the divide in the World Views of liberals and conservatives. The left has largely ignored the questionable interpretations and decisions of the SC majority and are delighting in the "setback" dealt to the Bush administration. The silver lining is that is that Hamdan may be stuck in Guantanamo Bay for quite some time to come. Also, unfortunately for the Democrats, elections are coming and once again, they will be forced to "show their hands." They must decide whether to appease the rabid left or support the on-going fight against terror.

The Supreme Court may have unwittingly sealed Democratic defeat in the 2006 elections.