Live from the Nuke Free Zone

I may not have been fond of yesterday’s Supreme Court decision on redistricting (why redistrict if new population data hasn’t come in?), but today’s (quotes from Findlaw) is much better.

Once again, the Supreme Court has called Bush on the carpet for blatantly disregarding the Constitution in detaining people without charge, lawyers, evidence, or appeal in any reasonable manner. I mean, seriously. You don’t just stumble into doing this kind of thing. You have to go out wanting to do exactly that, and hunt for reasons to justify it. The Supreme Court wasn’t fooled, methodically taking apart the Administration’s arguments on all counts.

(1) The “Detainee Treatment Act of 2005″ tried to statutorily strip the courts of jurisdiction over Guantanamo, saying, “no court … shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider … an application for … habeas corpus filed by … an alien detained … at Guantanamo Bay.” The Court held that this didn’t apply ex post facto to pending cases, and I hope that it will find the entire notion ridiculously unconstitutional in the future. Attempts to restrict the jurisdiction of the courts are a common weapon in the arsenal the GOP brings to bear on the Bill of Rights.

(2) “The military commission at issue lacks the power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949.” Can we make it any clearer?

(3) The Court rejects claims that “this Court lacked power even to consider the merits of a [Geneva] Convention argument because the political and military authorities had sole responsibility for observing and enforcing prisoners’ rights under the Convention,” because “regardless of the nature of the rights conferred … they are indisputably part of the law of war … compliance with which is the condition upon which UCMJ Art. 21 authority is granted.” In other words, law in wartime is still part of the Court’s purview.

(3) The Geneva Conventions do apply, despite the fact that al-Qaeda is not a nation: ‘Common Article 3, which appears in all four Conventions, provides that, in a “conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties [i.e., signatories], each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum,” certain provisions protecting “[p]ersons … placed hors de combat by … detention,” including a prohibition on “the passing of sentences … without previous judgment … by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees … recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.” … At a minimum, a military commission can be “regularly constituted” only if some practical need explains deviations from court-martial practice. No such need has been demonstrated here.’

(4) “Even assuming that Hamdan is a dangerous individual who would cause great harm or death to innocent civilians given the opportunity, the Executive nevertheless must comply with the prevailing rule of law in undertaking to try him and subject him to criminal punishment.” Christ. Since when does the Supreme Court have to make a point of telling the President he is still bound by the laws of the land? (When the President starts thinking he’s above the law, that’s when.)

(5) Finally, even supposing the military tribunals were legally constituted, people have the right to be faced with the evidence against them: “The phrase “all the guarantees … recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples” in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is not defined, but it must be understood to incorporate at least the barest of the trial protections recognized by customary international law. The procedures adopted to try Hamdan deviate from those governing courts-martial in ways not justified by practical need, and thus fail to afford the requisite guarantees. Moreover, various provisions of Commission Order No. 1 dispense with the principles, which are indisputably part of customary international law, that an accused must, absent disruptive conduct or consent, be present for his trial and must be privy to the evidence against him.”

You know, it’s a Congressional election year. What say we elect a Congress that’s actually in favor of the “barest of protections recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples”? You would think it wouldn’t be a hard decision for a civilized people.