|
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case on Military Tribunals
By DAVID STOUT
11/07/05 "New
York Times" -- -- WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 - The Supreme
Court agreed today to take a case involving Osama bin Laden's driver
that presents a major test to the Bush administration's military
tribunals for foreign terror suspects.
The justices will review the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni
who was captured in Afghanistan and charged with conspiracy to
commit attacks on civilians, murder and terrorism.
The court's announcement today was a disappointment to
administration lawyers, who had argued forcefully that it was
premature for the justices to get involved because Mr. Hamdan, who
is being held at the Guantánamo Bay naval base in Cuba, has yet to
have a full trial.
Mr. Hamdan has maintained through his lawyers that, even though he
was a driver for Mr. bin Laden, he was not a member of Al Qaeda and
never took up arms against Americans or their allies. His trial was
abruptly halted one year ago tomorrow by a federal district judge in
Washington, who ruled that the military commissions violated the
Geneva Conventions and the United States Constitution.
The district judge's ruling was overturned unanimously last July by
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit. In a big victory for the administration, the appeals court
held that trying some detainees before military commissions did not
violate the Constitution, international law or American military
law, as the district judge had concluded.
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales hailed the circuit court's
ruling when it was handed down. "The president's authority under the
laws of our nation to try enemy combatants is a vital part of the
global war on terror," he said, asserting that the decision
"reaffirms this critical authority."
But Neal K. Katyal, a Georgetown University law professor who has
represented Mr. Hamdan, expressed dismay and declared that the
circuit court ruling "places absolute trust in the president,
unchecked by the Constitution, statutes of Congress and longstanding
treaties ratified by the Senate of the United States."
The case of Mr. Hamdan is one of several since the Sept. 11 attacks
that involve potential conflicts between national security and
personal freedom. Today's announcement that the Supreme Court would
take the case disappointed administration lawyers, who had
maintained there was no need for the justices to intervene before a
verdict.
Last July, Judge John G. Roberts was on the District of Columbia
Circuit and ruled against Mr. Hamdan. Now, he is the new chief
justice of the United States. Assuming that he does not take part in
the Hamdan case when it is argued before the Supreme Court, there is
a possibility of a 4-to-4 ruling, which would uphold the Circuit
Court's ruling without setting a precedent for future cases.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
Translate
this page
(In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) |
