On The Front Lines
In 5-3 Hamdan Decision, U.S Supreme Court Rules that Bush Overstepped Authority in Ordering Military War Crimes Trials for Gitmo Detainees
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- In a 5-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared that the military commissions established by the Bush Administration to try detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, violate U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions. Calling on the Court to preserve America's legal tradition of providing the accused with fundamental due process rights, such as the right to confront their accusers, attorneys for The Rutherford Institute filed a "friend of the court" brief with the Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld along with other concerned organizations, including The American Jewish Committee, People for the American Way Foundation and Trial Lawyers for Public Justice. The brief urged the Court to recognize that in times of national and international peril it is important for the United States to uphold its fundamental and historic commitment to the rule of law and due process.
"The Court is to be congratulated for acting humanely," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "Deciding that all human beings have a right to a fair hearing is crucial to any civilized society's understanding of the rule of law."
Yemeni citizen Salim Ahmed Hamdan, reportedly Osama bin Laden's one-time driver, was charged with conspiring to commit terrorist acts after being captured in Afghanistan by militia forces in 2001. Upon his capture and relocation to the military installation in Guantanamo Bay, the Bush Administration determined that he would be tried by a military commission with relaxed standards, often barred from having access to evidence or the ability to confront his accuser. In August 2004, Hamdan's military commission was halted by an order from U.S. District Judge James Robertson; the ruling was reversed by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and accepted for review by the U.S. Supreme Court. In its 5-3 decision, which was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Supreme Court concluded that the military tribunals established by the Bush Administration to try detainees violate military justice law and the Geneva Conventions.
Concluding that the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 did not strip the Court of authority to rule on the military commission's legality, Justice Stevens pointed out that military commissions denied Hamdan and other detainees their basic due process rights by precluding the accused and their civilian attorneys from learning about key evidence discussed in closed hearings and by prohibiting military attorneys appointed to assist the accused from discussing the contents of the closed hearings. Furthermore, the Court rejected the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' conclusion that the Geneva Conventions, to which the United States is a signatory, do not apply to Hamdan. Chief Justice John Roberts recused himself from the case, having ruled against Hamdan while serving on the D.C. Circuit Court.
