PRESIDENT BUSH WANTS TO CLOSE GUANTANAMO BAY TERROR PRISON
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the military tribunals established by President Bush to try “enemy combatants” violated US law and the Geneva Conventions.
The 5-3 decision of the Supreme Court found that Bush had overstepped his authority as President by creating commissions and said that he failed to provide detainees with basic legal protections that are available under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Proponents of the Bush plan to summarily execute justice on detainees, which includes political pundit Ann Coulter, believe that the Supreme Court was wrong, and that the decision was only applicable to the Petitioner, Salim Hamdan, a 36-year old detainee who is accused of conspiracy for being a driver for Osama bin Laden.
The US Supreme Court in their 73 page majority decision that was written by Justice John Paul Stevens agreed with Hamdan's arguments that the Guantanamo Bay tribunals were not authorized by any act of Congress or common law in the United States.
The Supreme Court found that Bush's tribunals violated US law because they allowed the inclusion of evidence obtained under coercion and because defendants were not allowed to see or hear some of the evidence against them.
The tribunals failed to meet “the barest” rights that are accorded an accused under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which include that the accused be present during any hearing in his case.
The rules specified for Hamden's trial are illegal” wrote Justice Stevens. The Supreme Court's decision does not prevent the continued detention of the almost 450 detainees at Guantanamo.
Only 10 of those detained at Guantanamo have been charged with the commission of any acts in the illegal tribunal system.
Bush refuses to give any ground on the issue, and insists that the system is not only expedient, but within the limits of the law. He as indicated that to voice the Supreme Court's ruling that he will ask Congress to enact legislation that would conform with the Supreme Courts ruling.
Chief Justice John Roberts, a Bush appointee to the Court, recussed himself from hearing or ruling on the case because he ruled on the case in favor of the tribunals when at the appellate level.
Justice Samuel Alito, another Bush appointee to the Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Antonin Scalia rendered dissenting opinions that did not agree with the majority of the court, and sided with Bush against the Constitution, as well as common law.
Justice Thomas who has been on the Court for 15 years was so consumed with regret that the majority of the Court didn't back the President that he read, for the first time his dissenting opinion into the courts record. Thomas called the majority decision “unprecedented and dangerous” because it second guessed the President in determining which terrorists should be brought to justice. Thomas said that the high court didn't have the jurisdiction that challenged Bush's wartime powers. He predicted that the courts ruling would “sorely hamper the president's ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy.”
Justice Stephen Breyer dismissed Thomas and said that Bush could not exercise unchecked power in violation of law simply because he claims the power in the name of the war on terror. He wrote “Congress has not issued the executive a 'blank check'...indeed, Congress has denied the president the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here.”
Bush has unilaterally decided that his actions with regards to detainees are not bound by the Geneva Conventions when the US captures enemy combatants, because those detainees who are al-Qaeda are not part of a uniformed army. However, the courts decision debunked Bush's contentions, and indicated that the detainees were for the most part covered under the Geneva Conventions.
Human rights and civil libertarians hailed the decision as checking the President's unchecked powers after 9/11. Recent scandals to have surfaced have been the monitoring of private telephone calls, and the interception and search of private bank records inter alia in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
In a statement from Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a New York based organization that represents 200 detainees at Guantanamo Bay, said “What this says to the administration is you can no longer simply decide arbitrarily what you want to do with people.”
Bush said that he wants “to find a way forward” and he recently said that his preference would be to close Guantanamo. “I would like for there to be a way to return people from Guantanamo to their home countries, but some people need to be tried in our courts.”
There is no argument that detainees should be “tried in our courts”, as Bush has expressed. And, the courts decision has left the door open for that process. In fact Hamdan's military lawyer agrees.
Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift said that “It's clear how to proceed, which is exactly what we have asked from the beginning, in a regular court. All we have wanted is a fair trial.” Manuel Norriega, who was arrested in Panama by US forces who overthrew his government, was brought to the United States aboard military aircraft, was tried in a United States Court of Law, and was convicted by a jury. There is nothing to prevent Bush from criminally charging the 400 detainess at Guantanamo Bay in United States Court's, except that a criminal trial would require more proof of criminal conduct than mere generalities, and speculation.
The ultimate conclusion of the Supreme Courts decision is that you can not simply declare a war on terror, and then suspend the very same laws, and rules of democracy that we are exporting to Iraq, and other parts of the world.
SOURCES/CONTRIBUTORS: REUTERS; API; U,S, SUPREME COURT;
Copyright 2006 Randy L. Harrington. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

