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 For the case involving a United States citizen, see . Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack "the decision, where by a 5-3 margin justices struck down a military tribunal A military tribunal is a kind of military court designed to try members of enemy forces during wartime, operating outside the scope of conventional criminal and civil matters. The judges are military officers and fulfill the role of jurors. It is distinct from the court martial. called by the president for trying alleged terrorists at Guantanamo Bay Noun 1. Guantanamo Bay - an inlet of the Caribbean Sea; a United States naval station was established on the bay in 1903 bay, embayment - an indentation of a shoreline larger than a cove but smaller than a gulf . Quoting the 1866 case of Ex Parte Milligan Ex parte Milligan, , was an important United States Supreme Court case involving civilians and military tribunals. Background of the case Lambdin P. , 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 high seas In maritime law, the waters lying outside the territorial waters of any and all states. In the Middle Ages, a number of maritime states asserted sovereignty over large portions of 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 Rumsfeld v. Padilla, , was a United States Supreme Court case, in which José Padilla sought habeas corpus relief against Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, as a result of his detainment as an "unlawful , 2005) or even allowed to consult with a lawyer (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld For the case involving Guantanamo military commissions, see . Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) was a U.S. Supreme Court decision reversing the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition brought on behalf of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. , 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, 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? |
|
||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion