Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

The President Really Did Make Terrorists POW’s Today

Earlier today, before his speech, it was reported that President Bush was going to grant POW status to high-level terror detainees. Now there is some disagreement (see here and here) over whether or not the President has actually done that.

Personally, given the President's announcement today, I think he has. Bush has announced that 14 high-level terror detainees (info on those folks here) will be transfered to the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay in order to go through the tribunal process as soon as Congress authorizes it.

You'll remember that previously, in the Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld decision, the Supreme Court ruled that any tribunal established by the U.S. military must have the approval of Congress. This is in keeping with Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution which states:

The Congress shall have Power... To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations...and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water...[and] To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;


And Article III Section 1, which states:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.


Clearly, the idea that the President must get approval of Congress before ordering the military to establish any new tribunals not already allowed for under current military code is beyond argument. Unfortunately (in my estimation), in addition to ruling that the President's tribunals were simply un-Constitutional the Supreme Court went a step further (see pages 6 and 7) and also ruled that these tribunals violated Article III of the Geneva Conventions which prohibits executions and the passing of sentences without...

...previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.


In Hamdan the Supreme Court defined a "regularly constituted court" as:

“established and organized in accordance with the laws and procedures already in force in a country."

So what does all this mean? It means that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Geneva Conventions do, in fact, apply to terrorist detainees in the war on terror. Does that mean the terrorist detainees fall under the definition of "prisoner of war" as far as international law is concerned? I don't know. I'm not that smart, but as near as I can tell they may as well be POW's as they're getting all the same protections.

At the very least, I think it means that saying these detainees aren't POW's but are just entitled to certain protections under the Geneva Conventions is a distinction without much of a difference.

Regardless, this is why the President has transfered the high-level terror detainees mentioned above to Guantanamo Bay to await trial by whatever tribunals Congress authorizes. He had to do it in order to be in compliance with the Supreme Court, but it's also something of a leverage move as well. By putting the worst of the worst among terror detainees next in line for trial by tribunal the President puts a lot of pressure on Congress to approve his tribunals.

I think that ultimately it's a good move, in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in the matter. I'd still argue that the Hamdan decision went too far in applying the Geneva Conventions to terrorist detainees, but that's so much water under the bridge now.

Comments

Avatar for The Whistler

The consequence of an out of control Supreme Court.

The Whistler on September 6, 2006 at 01:12 pm
Avatar for Bat One

The consequence of an out of control Supreme Court.

Whistler,

Perhaps a more generous view would be that the Court is not yet where it needs to be.

I will be willing to bet that another Hamdan style case will develop over the next year or so, providing the full Roberts Court the chance to review the Geneva Convention portion of the Hamdan ruling.  Mr. Bush is a good deal more shrewd than his political foes are willing to allow, and the Hamdan ruling came when CJ Roberts had just been sworn in, and thus had virtually no influence on the Court as yet.  Also, of course, Roberts was obliged to recuse himself from the case because he had ruled on it at the Appellate level.

Bat One on September 6, 2006 at 01:25 pm
Avatar for aNONOMISLY

The consequence of an out of control Supreme Court.

BLAME the Republican party for it has appointed seven out of the current 9 justices, i.e. ~80 percent of the current Supreme court justices..

aNONOMISLY on September 6, 2006 at 01:26 pm
Avatar for FreeRepublicans.com

Ok, so they are Prisoners of War in an undeclared war.

I looked at a map, I couldn’t find any “Nation of Al Qaeda” - so I am wondering who do we negiciate with when they capture our people?

It has always been my belief that we should not negociate with terrorists as has always been this nation’s policy.

This new policy throws that away because only soldiers can be POWs; so this move not only terms captured terrorists are POWs, but it also says that un-captured terrorists are actually soldiers.

Whose soldiers are they then?  We have always negociated soldier POW swaps. 

This sets a bad precident because it now throws the door wide open.

This empowers the terrorists.

If Bush thought the Supreme Court was really wrong, he could continue to tell them to ‘shove it.’

Could it be this is a move by Bush to cover his rear against a charge of war crimes in the future?

---

The jist of this is that Bush just decreed that our soldiers and the terrorists are to be held to the same standard in the American system. 

Our soldiers do not get that same protection oversees.

This is neither right, nor politically smart this close to the election.

FreeRepublicans.com on September 6, 2006 at 01:30 pm
Avatar for MikeAdamson

Maybe we should regard terrorists as criminals rather than warriors...I recognise that the “War on Terror” is a snappy slogan but the jihadists just don’t fit the Geneva Conventions framework. Perhaps we need to come up with a Geneva Convention for terrorists if we don’t want to try them in criminal courts. Just some thoughts, please don’t hurt me.

I also think transferring the prisioners from the secret facilities to Guantanamo was pretty astute politically...supporters of the Hamdan decision can be accused of not wanting to prosecute the nastiest characters in custody if they try to block fixing the tribunals problem. Smart move.

MikeAdamson on September 6, 2006 at 05:10 pm
Avatar for Bezu Fache

How about an answer here Mike?

For every one of your interesting historical facts I can go out and find another interesting fact that either contradicts your fact

Bezu Fache on September 6, 2006 at 05:17 pm
Avatar for MikeAdamson

BF...I’m working on it so keep your pants on and get on the right thread. Sheesh...never a thread cop around when you need one.

MikeAdamson on September 6, 2006 at 05:32 pm
Rob
Rob
18069 comments
Send a private message

Perhaps we need to come up with a Geneva Convention for terrorists if we don’t want to try them in criminal courts.

I don’t see why we’d need to do that.  I think the President’s tribunal plan is perfectly adequate, and once it gets Congress’ approval it will be in keeping with the Geneva conventions.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on September 6, 2006 at 06:24 pm
Avatar for jpe

The court actually ruled that Congress required that the Genevas be applied through its use of the language of the “laws of war.” This language could be stripped from the statutes.

jpe on September 7, 2006 at 03:30 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.