Supremes on Detainees

In a ruling today:

The Supreme Court ruled narrowly Monday that Congress gave President Bush the power to hold an American citizen without charges or trial, but said the detainee can challenge his treatment in court.

The 6-3 ruling sided with the administration on an important legal point raised in the war on terrorism. At the same time, it left unanswered other hard questions raised by the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi, who has been detained more than two years and who was only recently allowed to see a lawyer.

The administration had fought any suggestion that Hamdi or another U.S.-born terrorism suspect could go to court, saying that such a legal fight posed a threat to the president's power to wage war as he sees fit.

Jacob Sullum looked at the Hamdi case here.

Update: The decision is here.

Comments

[dead_elvis]

What's scary is actually skimming through the ruling. I'm no lawyer, but read the intro to each opinion- Thomas' is truly scary. He wanted the court to *really* give the executive branch a blank check.

[thoreau]

What's scary is actually skimming through the ruling. I'm no lawyer, but read the intro to each opinion- Thomas' is truly scary. He wanted the court to *really* give the executive branch a blank check.

This is the difference between wanting the sort of government that the terrorists deserve vs. wanting the sort of government that a free society deserves.

[mak_nas]

mccain-feingold effectively scraps the first amendment. this would seem to scrap the fifth and sixth. PATRIOT scraps much of the rest. and of course, we've learned to ignore much of the constitution proper over decades -- from war powers to article 1 sec 9 clause 7.

the constitution is effectively a dead letter. now it really remains only to be seen: who will be our gaius marius? who will be our julius caesar? who will take advantage of the demolition of the law and the rise of factional jacobinism to spark the inevitable civil war and resulting dictatorship? it can't be more than ten years away, imo.

[crimethink]

I hate to interrupt the drumbeat of "the sky is falling," that seems to prevail on H&R these days, but...

The ACLU is happy with this ruling, and the buzz pretty much everywhere is that it's a huge defeat for the administration.

8-1 that citizens detained as enemy combatants essentially retain habeas corpus rights.

6-3 that non-citizens so detained can challenge their detention in federal court, or a military tribunal supervised by the courts.

And thank God, the prevailing opinion of the Court is that, "A state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens." Yes, it's a bad sign when that's a controversial statement, but be grateful that the SCOTUS remains on the side of freedom.

[crimethink]

The Supreme Court ruled narrowly Monday that Congress gave President Bush the power to hold an American citizen without charges or trial, but said the detainee can challenge his treatment in court.

RTFD.

A citizen so detained can challenge not only his treatment but also his continued detention in court. Essentially, he has a slower version of habeas corpus.

[thoreau]

I retract my earlier "sky is falling" posts.

[Evan Williams]

The administration had fought any suggestion that Hamdi or another U.S.-born terrorism suspect could go to court, saying that such a legal fight posed a threat to the president's power to wage war as he sees fit.

Well, of COURSE! Why let the Bill of Rights stand in the way of a dictator's ability to wage war as he sees fit?

Urge to kill, rising...

What a sad day in our history.

[db]

"The Supreme Court ruled narrowly Monday that Congress gave President Bush the power to hold an American citizen without charges or trial, but said the detainee can challenge his treatment in court."

Gee, I thought that power was denied to the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches by the Constitution.

The Congress certainly has no Constitutional right to delegate a power denied to itself.

Did we just see the Constitution amended outside the legal means for doing so? How many Americans care?

[James Anderson Merritt]

I must read the opinion for myself. How the hell can the Supremes say that Congress gave President Bush a constitutionally prohibited power? Common sense would conclude that several of the Bill of Rights combine to keep someone from being "disappeared." In particular:

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...

I'm really interested in seeing how the so-called guardians of our Constitution weaseled their way around the above points.

[Gary Gunnels]

If you had read the brief for the administration you would recognize that this was largely a loss for the Executive branch. The Executive argued that it had - pursuant to the President's Commander in Chief power - the authority via the Constitution to undertake such detentions. Though I have not read the majority's opinion, it appears that the Supreme Court has either rejected that theory, or have simply ignored it.

Furthermore, and what was always more interesting, as the concurrence/dissent in the Padilla circuit opinion stated, habeas corpus challenges have been retained - at least until the Congres abrogates such (as it has a Constitutional power to do under certain narrow circumstances as described in Article I).

Finally, there is also the issue of a federal court's structural role (its role as a check on the exercise of power by the other branches), which the 2nd Circuit viewed quite narrowly in its decision, something which the Supreme Court appears to have taken some issue with.

In short, the President didn't get nearly all he wanted; indeed, in light of the Executive branch's claim that the court simply butt out of such issues, this was definately a loss for the Executive branch. If anything, the ruling re-affirmed the centrality of the CONGRESS in these matters, not the Executive branch.

[Evan Williams]

The less people know/care about the Constitution & BoR, the more the government can abuse it without reprisal.

[Jason Ligon]

"The less people know/care about the Constitution & BoR, the more the government can abuse it without reprisal."

People know all they need to know about it. Namely, it can be ignored at will. You say constitutionally prohibited federal redistribution schemes are desirable? No sweat! Just threaten to stack the courts and subvert the amendment process! Don't forget to get the justices to invoke the concept that the commerce clause trumps the rest of the constitution so future monarchs don't have to even bother with the threat.

You say you want environmental regulation but you know you could never pass it through congress as the constitution requires? No problem! Just create an unelected federal agency that you empower with congressional legislative power! Don't forget to get court sign off on the notion that Regulatory Agencies (tm) aren't writing laws, their whimsical interpretations may carry the force of law, but are technically Regulations uncovered by the constitution.

You say the delegation of powers is getting in the way of a war? No problem! Get rid of them by having congress grant unconstitutional war powers to the executive. Don't forget to have the courts rule that the whim of the president trumps the rest of the constitution.

We are sleeping in the bed FDR made.

[Evan Williams]

Yeah, what Jason said.

[thoreau]

This is scary. Very scary. Why do I hear the Imperial March in the background?

Then again, I can't really blame the Supreme Court Justices. If they didn't rule in his favor, who's to say that they wouldn't have been the next in line?

[David McElroy]

I would post my opinion about this, but disagreeing with the government about it might make me an enemy combatant and I'd be gone for good.

[James Anderson Merritt]

I'm about halfway through the 100-page decision now (hey, I have to give up my lunch hours to RTFD), and while I encountered a lot of encouraging pro-freedom declarations in Justess O'Connor's majority opinion, Souter is persuasive in his insistence that long-term, incommunicado detentions are justified neither by the congress' authorization of the use of force, nor by the applicable "rules of war."

As far as I can see so far, the majority opinion only requires that detainees be given a proper chance to contest the facts that inspired their classification as enemy combatants and subsequent detention. This DOES seem like an important win for the detainees, but the whole murky issue of which facts can justify combatant status, and what can be done to combatants -- and for how long -- still appears to be up in the air. How does it seem to others here who have read the decision?

During today's lunch hour, I am hoping to get to the minority dissents, which others here have implied were pretty juicy.

[crimethink]

If anything, the ruling re-affirmed the centrality of the CONGRESS in these matters, not the Executive branch.

Indeed. Let's just hope they've learned to read bills before they pass them.

[brooklyn dave]

I see it as a mixed bag. The comments on how our citizenry are basically ignorant of the constitution saddens me. It seems as though the attutde is "just keep feeding me a steady diet of sports and Hollywood and I'll remain happily ignorant of what's going on in politics" Sure in a time of war things should be looked at a bit differently than in peace time. Just by the fact that 2 of those guys are American citizens should put them in a different position than the foreign born detainees.