The high court, in a 5-3 vote, said the administration violated the Geneva Conventions and the US military code of justice in ordering a military tribunal to prosecute Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni and former driver for al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.What an interesting take on the Geneva Conventions. A wrong take, actually. Deliberately wrong? I’d say so.
US President George W Bush said that a US Supreme Court ruling on the fate of Guantanamo Bay detainees would not set any suspected terrorists free and that he still hoped to try them in military courts.I think the best way forward is to now modify the way we deal with captured enemy combatants who don’t use uniforms, effectively hiding behind civilian populations and so directly placing them in danger (precisely what it was the Geneva Convention was seeking to discourage, actually, in its harsh agreed treatment of precisely that).
"We will analyse the decision. To the extent that the Congress is given any latitude to develop a way forward using military tribunals, we will work with them," said Mr Bush. "I want to find a way forward."
Shoot them. No more prisoners.
Update: LGF sums it up rather nicely (thanks Nilk):
By extending Geneva Convention protections to illegal, non-uniformed combatants, the Supreme Court has violated not only the spirit, but the letter of the Conventions. The clauses about non-protection of illegal combatants are specifically designed to protect civilians, from terrorists and brigands who would otherwise hide among civilian populations to escape justice. The harshest penalties are allowed for those who abuse this convention, up to and including summary execution on the field of battle.
Update II: the words of one of the dissenting Justices:
For the reasons set forth in JUSTICE SCALIA’s dissent, it is clear that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain petitioner’s claims, see ante, at 1–11. The Court having concluded otherwise, it is appropriate to respond to the Court’s resolution of the merits of petitioner’s claims because its opinion openly flouts our well-established duty to respect the Executive’s judgment in matters of military operations and foreign affairs. The Court’s evident belief that it is qualified to pass on the “[m]ilitary necessity,” ante, at 48, of the Commander in Chief’s decision to employ a particular form of force against our enemies is so antithetical to our constitutional structure that it simply cannot go unanswered.
I respectfully dissent.
All hail the judge!