US Supreme Court Rules Against Military Tribunals

In what many consider to be a surprise decision, the US Supreme Court decided against the Bush administration in the case of Hamdan v Rumsfeld. By a vote of 5-3, the court ruled that the tribunals at Gitmo are illegal.

The case raised core constitutional principles of separation of powers as well as fundamental issues of individual rights. Specifically, the questions concerned:

The power of Congress and the executive to strip the federal courts and the Supreme Court of jurisdiction.

The authority of the executive to lock up individuals under claims of wartime power, without benefit of traditional protections such as a jury trial, the right to cross-examine one's accusers and the right to judicial appeal.

The applicability of international treaties -- specifically the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war -- to the government's treatment of those it deems "enemy combatants."

During a press conference today Bush said that, although he hasn't totally reviewed the decision, he believes that congress may be able to find a way to hold the military tribunals ie. suggesting that congress could pass a law that would overrride the court's decision. (This would be yet another example of congress covering Bush's butt for his illegal actions).

Update: Amnesty International has released its statement in response to this decision.

Amnesty International to the Bush Administration:
Game Over Due to Supreme Court Ruling on Military Commissions

"Today's ruling is a triumph for the rule of law and sends a clear message to President Bush that he cannot act unilaterally to create a system of law from thin air. With this decision, it's game over -- the Bush administration has been shut out. It's time to return to U.S. founding principles of due process and fundamental rights.

The Court's decision reflects many of the criticisms that Amnesty International, based on firsthand observations, has made of the commissions. A return to due process and fair trials standards is not just a victory for Salim Ahmed Hamdan, but a victory for justice and human rights. The Court has clearly stated that the president cannot invoke wartime powers to circumvent U.S. laws and international treaties that the United States has ratified."

Update #2: Think Progress has more details about the votes and opinions of the Supreme Court's justices. The usual conservative suspects - Scalia, Thomas and Alito - voted to back the administration.

Update #3: Lawyer Glenn Greenwald offers his perspective and notes that the court's decision has broader implications on the expansion of the president's authority, which has definitely gone beyond existing legal precedents.