Posted by Frank James at 2:27 pm CDT
In its decision handed down today in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, in which the Supreme Court majority essentially said President Bush didn’t have the authority to use military tribunals to try accused terrorist detainees, it added that to abide by the law, Bush needed to go back to Congress to get that power.
After digesting the high court’s decision, Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), the Senate’s majority leader, indicated this afternoon that, if he has anything to do with it, Congress will speedily give the president that authority.
Here’s Frist’s press release to that effect.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 29, 2006
FRIST COMMENTS ON HAMDAN SUPREME COURT DECISION
WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, M.D., (R–Tenn.) made the following statement regarding future legislation in light of today’s Supreme Court decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld:
“Following the July 4th recess, I will introduce legislation, in consultation with the Administration and my colleagues, that authorizes military commissions and appropriate due process procedures for trials of terrorist combatants.
To keep America safe in the War on Terror, I believe we should try terrorists only before military commissions, not in our civilian courts. In response to today’s Supreme Court decision, Congress should work with the President to update our laws on terrorist combatants to respond to the new threats of a post-9/11 world. Since this issue so directly impacts our national security, I will pursue the earliest possible action in the United States Senate.”
House Majority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), talked a little bit with the press today about the issue too.
He hadn’t had a chance before he talked with reporters to read the court’s decision, he said. But he indicated that he believed the president as commander-in-chief during a time of war had inherent powers to take measures the president deemed necessary to protect the American people.
Then he largely begged off the from providing a more detailed answer until he had a chance to review the decision.
But it’s unlikely House Republicans wouldn’t go at least as far as the Senate to give the president the authority to conduct military tribunals of enemy combatants during a mid-term election year.
The Republican strategy for holding onto Congress is to campaign hard as the party that knows far better than the Democrats how to prosecute the Global War on Terrorism. Giving the president the power to try detainees is a no-brainer as a step to advance that strategy. Seen in that light, the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision was an unintended gift to congressional Republicans that will keep on giving, at least through the November elections.
Given that, the rejoicing of the liberal People for the American Way today isn't likely to last long. Here's the PFAW press release.
Hamdan Ruling Major Defeat for Bush Administration, Victory for Rule of Law
PFAW Foundation Filed Amicus Brief in Case
This morning, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which overturned an appeals court’s determination that military detainees are not entitled to fundamental due process rights including the right to be present at their trials and the right to confront witnesses against them.
Ralph G. Neas, president of People For the American Way Foundation, which filed an amicus brief in the case, welcomed the ruling. “However heinous the crime of which someone is accused, the hallmark of American justice and that of most civilized nations is that everyone is entitled to a fair trial,” Neas said. “Today’s Supreme Court decision reaffirms that principle. Today’s ruling sends a strong signal to the president that his administration cannot continue to ignore the rule of law.”
An ideologically diverse group of organizations including the Rutherford Institute, Trial Lawyers for Public Justice and the American Jewish Committee joined People For the American Way Foundation in filing the amicus brief (available here). These organizations argued that detainees are entitled to the basic tenets of fair trials and it is unlawful and unconstitutional for the United States to try them in absentia or to prevent them from confronting their accusers.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Finally. The rule of law has prevailed.
Posted by: Jorge from Bloomington | June 29, 2006 3:51 PM
But today’s Supreme Court opinion makes clear that a congressionally-authorized military commission would need to comply with Geneva Conventions, particularly Common Article 3. From the Hamdan opinion:
"Common Article 3, then, is applicable here and, as indicated above, requires that Hamdan be tried by a "regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. *** The commentary accompanying a provision of the Fourth Geneva Convention, for example, defines "'regularly constituted'" tribunals to include "ordinary military courts" and "definitely exclud[e] all special tribunals." *** Common Article 3 obviously tolerates a great degree of flexibility in trying individuals captured during armed conflict; its requirements are general ones, crafted to accommodate a wide variety of legal systems. But requirements they are nonetheless. The commission that the President has convened to try Hamdan does not meet those requirements."
In other words, Congress could first have to withdraw from the Geneva Convention or exempt its application with respect to the military commissions. But then again, who would put withdrawl from the Geneva Convention past this GOP Congress.
Posted by: So-Called "Austin Mayor" | June 29, 2006 4:05 PM
See, this won't stop Bush from incarcerating terrorists, they'll just go through Congress.
Posted by: Bill | June 29, 2006 4:23 PM
The PFAW are an endless source of laughter. I can't wait for their next press release. They're the most consistently wrong political group in the world. Well, maybe except for the DNC.
Posted by: Bill | June 29, 2006 4:27 PM
I think any GOP move to allow the President to continue to hold military tribunals - or indefinite captivity - will only further undercut whatever standing we have left on the world stage. Our own Supreme Court has issued a ruling against our methods of prosecuting detainees referencing the Geneva conventions and our obligations to those conventions, but while the ink is still drying our governing body moves quickly to ignore such conventions.
I can only hope that our leaders in congress will not arrogantly believe that by shunning international laws we will somehow win in this so-called "War on Terror."
Posted by: Robert | June 29, 2006 4:56 PM
F L A S H ! ! ! N O T ! ! ! F L A S H ! ! ! N O T ! ! !
RANDY RUMOR AT RUMOR CONTROL HERE,
THIS JUST IN, UNCONFIRMED REPORTS FROM "RELIABLE SOURCES" (I.E.: A FEW WASHINGTON INSIDERS* WHO DID NOT WISH TO BE IDENTIFIED AS BEING IN A POSITION TO KNOW ANYTHING WHATSOEVER) INDICATE THAT NYTIMES, BOSTONGLOBE, AND LATIMES EMPLOYEES ARE LEAVING BY THE THOUSANDS AND HEADING TOWARD CANADA TO SEEK ASYLUM. ONCE AGAIN, THESE REPORTS ARE UNCONFIRMED. ONE MIGHT BE TEMPTED TO ASSUME THAT THESE REPORTS, IF TRUE, HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE REPUBLICAN PROPOSAL TO GIVE PRESIDENT BUSH FULL AND UNCONDITIONAL POWER TO USE MILITARY TRIBUNALS AGAINST ALL ENEMIES. FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. BUT, ONE SHOULD ALWAYS REMEMBER THAT IT IS DANGEROUS TO ASSUME ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT ONE HEARS OR READS OR SEES IN THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA.
* Insiders: people who live inside the Beltway.
D E V E L O P I N G . . .
(not)
Posted by: M.Murray | June 29, 2006 6:51 PM
Shouldn't the above article be amended to say that that the terrorists, and "the Swamp" reporters, are joining the "liberal People for the American Way" in "rejoicing" at the Hamdan opinion?
Posted by: Bruce | June 29, 2006 10:07 PM
Finally, a check and a balance by the SCOTUS to the burgeoning imperial presidency presided over by King Chen..er Bush. Because lord knows it ain't gonna come from the Congressional Republisheep.
Rumsfeld in his typical arrogance said that the Court's desision still allowed the Gitmo prisoners to be held indefinately and without trial.
Nonetheless, it looks like Dubya and the Republisheep are going to cut a deal on military tribunals.
With appropriate transparent (read that open) and fair trials we might just put this sordid tale's chapter behind us.
As an aside, I figure a lot of these prisoners are guilty of one thing or another and when they are found guilty, where are they going to serve their sentences? Gitmo, Leavenworth, Federal Supermax in Colorado, Diego Garcia? build a prison ship and stick them out in the middle of nowhere?
Of course that still leaves open the status of prisoners we are holding in far flung corners of the world.
Posted by: Doug Zook | June 30, 2006 6:25 AM
Hey, We should not have taken these terrorist prisoners, should have shot them. Cliff
Posted by: cliff zeider | July 3, 2006 8:22 AM