Hamdan What the ruling says--and what it doesn't say.

WSJ - Opinion Journal ^ | July 3, 2006 | DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY

[yoe]

The Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, invalidating for now the use of military commissions to try al Qaeda and associated detainees, may be a setback for U.S. policy in the war on terror. But it is a setback with a sterling silver lining. All eight of the justices participating in this case agreed that military commissions are a legitimate part of the American legal tradition that can, in appropriate circumstances, be used to try and punish individuals captured in the war on terror. Moreover, nothing in the decision suggests that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay must, or should, be closed.

Indeed, none of the justices questioned the government's right to detain Salim Ahmed Hamdan (once Osama bin Laden's driver), or other Guantanamo prisoners, while hostilities continue. Nor did any of them suggest that Mr. Hamdan, or any other Guantanamo detainee, must be treated as civilians and accorded a speedy trial in the civilian courts. Precisely because opponents of the Bush administration's detention policies have advanced these, or substantially similar claims, Hamdan has dealt them a decisive defeat. Together with the Supreme Court's 2004 decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld--directly affirming the government's right to capture and detain, without criminal charge or trial, al Qaeda and allied operatives until hostilities are concluded--Hamdan vindicates the basic legal architecture relied upon by the administration in prosecuting this war.

[syriacus]

The Screw Talk Times would have castigated General Washington
1) for forming a military board to try the spy John André.
2) for ignoring André's pleas to be shot, rather than hanged.

[syriacus]

The article is a keeper!! Bookmarked!! Thank you.

[AmericaUnited]

Talking about Revolutionary War traitors, I just watched in the History Channel how Benedict Arnold was the hero of the Battle of Saratoga. Interesting.

[syriacus]

I just watched in the History Channel how Benedict Arnold was the hero of the Battle of Saratoga. Interesting.

Yes, he is a great example of the possibility that even heroes can become traitors.

[shteebo]

The silver lining in the decision, as I see it, is that Congress now has a reason to have a vote on a "do terrorists deserve the same legal protections as citizens" issue. I would love to see all the lefties forced to go on record on this.

[R.W.Ratikal]

What the ruling says is that one individual, Hamdan, who was Hussien's driver and bodyguard, cannot be tried by a military tribunal. This ruling might not necessarily apply to other individuals under different circumstances.

Maybe Ham (no pun intended) was a good driver, he was a poor bodyguard.

[AgThorn]

Excellent piece. Looks like since Gitmo is a keeper and keeping the prisoners until hostilities cease is a supreme court dictate, that Bush is really the 'nice guy' in all this in his trying to find an legal end (tribunals) to each prisoners sentence, that would be 'better' for the defendant than the legal court-martials it could apply.

Now, since the supreme court says no to nothing that Bush has attempted, only that he must get the tribunal process defined first by Congress, this really shows that the Bush Administration is trying to more 'hospitable' to the terrorists it holds (something the left should be proud of!) than it is required.

I think there is a good spin in here somewhere!

[Pikachu_Dad]

As an alternative, the administration could also try the detainees in courts-martial.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

That was a great production by the History Channel....