Supreme Court hears Bush illegal detention case
Today the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.
Salim Ahmed Hamdan is reputed to be Bin Laden's driver. He is charged with conspiracy to commit war crimes, and was set for trial before a military tribunal. He has been held for over three years at Guatanamo Bay prison camp, with no access to the courts until two years ago, when the Supreme Court ruled that while the government had the right to hold detainees at Guantanamo, the prisoners could also challenge their status in federal courts. The justices at the time did not give specifics on how that should be done, or address the tribunal issue.
Bush declared Hamdan, born in 1970, an "enemy combatant," and asserted he was not covered by the Geneva Conventions, which protect regular prisoners of war. Hamdan was charged with various conspiracy counts related to terrorism. Hamdan challenged his trial before a military tribunal. He won his case in federal district court, and then lost on appeal to the District of Columbia Federal Circuit Court. His case was granted cert last November.
Several of the Justices sounded very skeptical today of governement claims that Hamdem may be tried before a miltiary tribunal instead of in an actual court, that the Geneva Convention does not apply, as well as Bush Administration claims that the Court lacks jurisdiction to act.
Hopefully the Supremes will slap the Bush arguments down. There must be some due process for these prisoners. Otherwise, they are denied treatment as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention, and denied all protections. Many will say 'who cares' what these terrorirsts are denied. My response is how do we know they are actually terrorists without a real trial or due process protections? ANYONE can be scooped up and detained with only the mere claim that they are a terrorist.(Of course it might be more likely to be detained when you drive Bin Laden's car;)
If we forfeit our rights to protect ourselves from terrorism, we will have lost exactly what we most need to protect.
Resource Links: NPR Story from All things Considered, NW University Case summary and links to briefs
Salim Ahmed Hamdan is reputed to be Bin Laden's driver. He is charged with conspiracy to commit war crimes, and was set for trial before a military tribunal. He has been held for over three years at Guatanamo Bay prison camp, with no access to the courts until two years ago, when the Supreme Court ruled that while the government had the right to hold detainees at Guantanamo, the prisoners could also challenge their status in federal courts. The justices at the time did not give specifics on how that should be done, or address the tribunal issue.
Bush declared Hamdan, born in 1970, an "enemy combatant," and asserted he was not covered by the Geneva Conventions, which protect regular prisoners of war. Hamdan was charged with various conspiracy counts related to terrorism. Hamdan challenged his trial before a military tribunal. He won his case in federal district court, and then lost on appeal to the District of Columbia Federal Circuit Court. His case was granted cert last November.
Several of the Justices sounded very skeptical today of governement claims that Hamdem may be tried before a miltiary tribunal instead of in an actual court, that the Geneva Convention does not apply, as well as Bush Administration claims that the Court lacks jurisdiction to act.
Hopefully the Supremes will slap the Bush arguments down. There must be some due process for these prisoners. Otherwise, they are denied treatment as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention, and denied all protections. Many will say 'who cares' what these terrorirsts are denied. My response is how do we know they are actually terrorists without a real trial or due process protections? ANYONE can be scooped up and detained with only the mere claim that they are a terrorist.(Of course it might be more likely to be detained when you drive Bin Laden's car;)
If we forfeit our rights to protect ourselves from terrorism, we will have lost exactly what we most need to protect.
Resource Links: NPR Story from All things Considered, NW University Case summary and links to briefs
posted by Mike Grayson @ 8:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home