Geneva Convention vs Guantanamo detainees and the Supreme Court- UPDATE
Well, The U.S. Supreme Court today strongly limited the power of the Bush administration to conduct military tribunals for detainees at Guantanamo Bay. "Congress has not issued the executive a 'blank check,'" Justice Stephen Breyer wrote. The case was titled, "Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, et al."
To quote the findings of the Supreme Court, "The District Court granted habeas relief and stayed the commission's proceedings, concluding that the President's authority to establish military commissions extends only to offenders or offenses triable by such a commission under the law of war; that such law includes the Third Geneva Convention; that Hamdan is entitled to that Convention's full protections until adjudged, under it, not to be a prisoner of war; and that, whether or not Hamdan is properly classified a prisoner of war, the commission convened to try him was established in violation of both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U. S. C. §801 et seq., and Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention because it had the power to convict based on evidence the accused would never see or hear. The D. C. Circuit reversed. Although it declined the Government's invitation to abstain from considering Hamdan's challenge, cf. Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U. S. 738, the appeals court ruled, on the merits, that Hamdan was not entitled to relief because the Geneva Conventions are not judicially enforceable."
One quote by Justice Stevens in his majority opinion statement was particularly pointed and followed what I had been arguing recently. He said, "The military commission at issue lacks the power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949. Pp. 49-72."... and also this, "The procedures adopted to try Hamdan also violate the Geneva Conventions. The D. C. Circuit dismissed Hamdan's challenge in this regard on the grounds, inter alia, that the Conventions are not judicially enforceable and that, in any event, Hamdan is not entitled to their protections. Neither of these grounds is persuasive. Pp. 62-68."
Finally the Courts got this right. Having said that it could have gone either way with this Court.
UPDATE: June 30, 2006 5:00pm PST
Conservatives are calling the decision by the Supreme Court, against the President and the Administration, an act of Judicial activism. This is the same group that thought the Supreme Court had made some recent decisions correctly. They can't have it both ways. But Rove and his supporters are trying to make this a campaign issue again. They want even more Conservatives on the bench. The Court should not be politicized and it is immoral to do so and undermines the fabric of our nation. Don't fall for their tricks and shenanigans. As I went into great depth here, the President and VP were wrong on this, and the Court has so ruled. Stop trying to get around the Constitution, and start following it and upholding the very oath to "GOD" you both swore to uphold.
The Supreme Court to decide whether the President has exceeded his authority to use a Military tribunal for the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. In addition, the Court will rule on whether these combatants have rights and fall under the Geneva Convention. The Ruling is expected today. I have been writing about this for several months now and it is the first test of the Constitutional authority of the President as Commander in Chief. See this titled, The Geneva Convention-Are we above the law? and this one titled, "Why the Geneva Convention distinction between military tribunal or competent tribunal"