Bush tries tricks with detainees, courts come to the rescue
By Michael Culver
The Collegian |
The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will decide on the legality and limits of presidential power in regard to detainees of America’s War on Terror; and the limitations of the commission charged with conducting the tribunals in which these detainees will be tried.
At the center of the controversy is Saddam Hussein’s former bodyguard, Salim Ahmed Hamed. Hamed is charged with murder, conspiracy and other terrorist-related crimes.
But the real question is: does the United States have jurisdiction over the prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?
Military and civilian lawyers representing Hamed argue that President Bush has neither the statutory authorization nor inherent authority to establish the commission. Other lawyers, also representing Hamed, argue that the domestic and international issues need to be heard and resolved without delay.
The Bush administration wants the court to stand on an appellant court decision made by three judges, including newly appointed Chief Justice John G. Roberts, which unanimously overturned the decision of a district court judge who halted the military trial of Hamed.
The Bush administration contends that the detainees are not prisoners of war, therefore they are not fully protected under the Geneva Convention.
Sorry Bush, but you got this one wrong. If it smells like a dog, you have to wonder if it is a dog.
But when it is called a dog you remove all doubt, just as in this instance.
Bush calls it a War on Terror, but he would have you believe that by shipping those who are captured in the fight to another destination this gives him a right to change their status from prisoner to detainee. It just doesn’t work like that.
If we want the rest of the world to look to the United States as a role model for democracy and justice, we need to extend the rights of our laws to those accused in an international dispute.
Comment on this story in the Opinion forum >>
|
