Several bloggers are making the argument that the Supreme Court’s decision today in the Hamdan case striking down the Bush Administration’s plans to use military tribunals to try Guantanamo detainees is, effectively, a surrender in the War on Terror.
For example, Oak Leak writes at Polipundit
This morning, the United States of America signed the instrument of surrender with al Queda and all affiliated terror organizations. The signatories representing the United States were Anthony Kennedy, Steven Bryer, John Paul Stevens, Ruth Ginsburg and David Souter.
The reason for this unconditional surrender was that while the Supreme Court Justices ?support the troops? and particpate in drives to send old magazines to soldiers, they do not ?Trust the Troops.?
This is, I think, overreaching. The Court did not say that the prisoners at Guantanamo had to be released. It didn’t say that every captured member of Al Qaeda is entitled to a trial in a Federal Court. It merely stated, as ScotusBlog points out, that the Geneva Convention applies to the ongoing fight against Al-Qaeda. Its unclear that this will have any real impact at all on the War on Terror since, as James Joyner points out, we’ve been complying with the terms of the Geneva Convention anyway.
As I read Hamdan based on what’s come out so far, the Court has basically said that the President has to comply with the Rule of Law even when exercising his power to defend the nation. I cannot really think of a reason why that’s a bad thing.
Previous Post:
Military Tribunals Unconstitutional
[...] Military Tribunals Unconstitutional Hamdan And The War On Terror Hamdan And Executive Power [link] [...]