Printer Friendly
The Free Library
4,487,539 articles and books
Member login
User name  
Password 
 
Join us Forgot password?

Hamdan case: a victory for individual rights.


The U.S. Supreme Court handed devotees of individual liberty a victory with the June 29 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision, where by a 5-3 margin justices struck down a military tribunal called by the president for trying alleged terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. Quoting the 1866 case of Ex Parte ex parte (ex par-tay, but popularly, ex party) adj. Latin meaning "for one party," referring to motions, hearings or orders granted on the request of and for the benefit of one party only. This is an exception to the basic rule of court procedure that both parties must be present at any argument before a judge, and to the otherwise strict rule that an attorney may not notify a judge without previously notifying the opposition. Milligan, the majority ruled that "the president [cannot] institute tribunals for the trial and punishment of offenses, either of soldiers or civilians, unless in cases of a controlling necessity, which justifies what it compels, or at least insures acts of indemnity from the justice of the legislature."

And, the majority ruled, there was no emergency that necessitated the president constituting a tribunal without first obtaining the explicit authorization of Congress.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld recognized that although the president has extraordinary powers during a declared war to allow for swift prosecution of that war, he has no power to constitute a court--even a military court--on a whim. The U.S. Constitution reserves to Congress alone the exclusive power to "declare war" (which Congress has not done), "constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court," "define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the laws of nations" (such as terrorism), and "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces" (including court "commissions" under military auspices).

The Bush administration's working strategy regarding people it has detained seems to be to assume they have no rights--unless forced to do otherwise. This is the same Bush administration that has previously asserted in cases fought all the way to the Supreme Court that detainees who are U.S. citizens are not entitled to a trial by jury (Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 2005) or even allowed to consult with a lawyer (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 2004).

In both cases, the Bush administration folded as it faced a losing proposition at the high court. Faced with a mandate to provide some sort of trial, the administration opted to create a Star Chamber Star Chamber, ancient meeting place of the king of England's councilors in the palace of Westminster in London, so called because of stars painted on the ceiling. The court of the Star Chamber developed from the judicial proceedings traditionally carried out by the king and his council, and was entirely separate from the common-law courts of the day. In the 15th cent., where secret evidence could be presented without either the defendant or his attorney being present. How, one wonders, are defendants supposed to defend against evidence that they aren't even allowed to see?
COPYRIGHT 2006 American Opinion Publishing, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2006, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:The New American
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Jul 24, 2006
Words:363
Previous Article:White House, GOP, Dems Court La Raza Radicals.
Next Article:Whom are we arresting?(Osama bin Laden)(Brief article)
Topics:



Related Articles
ARAB-US RELATIONS - Aug. 5 - UAE Warns Against Embassy Move.(United Arab Emirates)(Brief Article)
UAE - Profile - Shaikh Hamdan Bin Rashid Al Maktoum.
Ashcroft's arrogance.(Editorials)(Comments reveal disregard for checks, balances)(Editorial)
A true hero.(Charles Swift)(Brief article)
UAE - Shaikh Hamdan Bin Rashed Al-Maktoum.
A welcome rebuke.(Editorials)(Court halts tribunals for Guantanamo detainees)(Editorial)
In Guantanamo case, justices rein in executive power.
PALESTINE - Oct 11 - Hamas Accuses Abbas Of Wrecking Unity Talks.(Mahmoud Abbas)(Brief article)
The court goes to war.(THE LAW)(Hamdan decision, terrorist interrogation)

Terms of use | Copyright © 2008 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters | Submit articles