THE 4 REBUKES

This is a nice summary of the 4 Supreme Court decisions that rebuked the criminal Bush regime.

Why This Court Keeps Rebuking This President
By JONATHAN MAHLER*
Published: June 15, 2008
NY Times

In keeping with the court’s general reluctance to interfere with the president’s war-making powers, its rulings in the war on terror began relatively modestly. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, in 2004, pertained only to United States citizens detained as enemy combatants on American soil; the court held that they must get a “meaningful opportunity” to challenge the factual basis for their detention.

The second ruling, in Rasul v. Bush, came soon after the scandal at Abu Ghraib. Though momentous, it was still limited. The court found, 6-3, that Guantànamo Bay was within United States jurisdiction and subject to its laws, meaning detainees there were entitled to some sort of due process in American courts. It didn’t specify the process, nor suggest that Congress couldn’t amend a law through which detainees could access the courts.

The 2006 Hamdan case concerned the military commissions that President Bush established at Guantánamo Bay to try some detainees in the aftermath of 9/11. Here the court’s majority went further. It found that by creating the commissions without asking Congress to agree, the president had overstepped his authority under the Constitution’s separation of powers. Moreover, it held that the president was obligated to honor America’s commitments under the Geneva Conventions.

In response, the administration succeeded in getting Congress to authorize the military commissions and stripping the Guantánamo detainees of the right to habeas corpus. Which brings us to last week’s ruling in Boumediene — and the 5-4 decision to restore that ancient right.

*Jonathan Mahler, a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine, is the author of “ The Challenge: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and the Fight Over Presidential Power,” due for publication in August by Farrar, Straus & Giroux.