It's time to take it on
By Michael C. Dorf
Web Exclusive: 10.13.05
Something odd is happening in the Supreme Court. On Tuesday, for the second time in two weeks, the Court delayed deciding whether or not to grant review in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. A federal appeals court -- which included then-Judge, now Chief Justice, John Roberts -- rejected a challenge to the military commissions the Bush administration has established to try foreign nationals deemed by the president to be “unlawful enemy combatants.”
The Hamdan case could not be more important, as it poses fundamental questions along three constitutional fronts: the division of power between the president and Congress; the rights of individuals to have their liberties protected by the courts; and the relationship between international human rights norms such as the Geneva Convention and United States domestic law.
Hamdan, who the government claims was Osama bin Laden’s personal driver and bodyguard, lost on all of these questions before the appeals court, but his arguments remain strong and directly relevant to the most pressing issues of national security and human rights.
In defending their recent legislation to categorically ban “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment,” Republican Senators Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and John Warner have repeatedly faced complaints that such limits would unduly interfere with the president’s authority as commander-in-chief. That objection is absurd on its face. The U.S. Constitution expressly grants to Congress the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” <snip>
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10423