Pundits laud 'enemy combatants' ruling
While Supreme Court decision hands Bush legal defeat, it strengthens executive role in waging war in an age of terror.
In three rulings handed down Monday, the "Supremes," made clear that "enemy combatants are
entitled to [have] access to US courts whether they are being held in a military brig within the US or at a terrorism prison camp" at Guant���namo Bay, Cuba, reports
The Christian Science Monitor.And while the full legal implications of the Court's decisions are yet to be fully digested, editorials and opinion pieces reflecting a wide spectrum of viewpoints from newspapers both domestic and international, praised the outcome. Pundits viewed the Court as decisive, both legally, and more importantly, democratically, in asserting the role of courts as final arbiter of individual rights. The Court rejected the Bush administration's core legal premise, that when it comes to waging war, the separation of powers principle in the US Constitution gives the executive branch final say on open-ended detention of enemy combatants. Just as important was the way in which the Court "correctly
placed itself at the center of this political storm and re-emphasized the importance of the rule of law," editorialized the
Times of London (subscription).
The decision by the US Supreme Court that the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have the right to challenge their captivity in American courts is wise and brave. ...The ruling should also be a rebuke to the many pundits (and film-makers) who claim that American democracy has been a victim of the political atmosphere created by the September 11, 2001, atrocities. It plainly has not. The court's firm stance in this instance echoes other occasions when its members have inconvenienced the executive in times of war. Summing up the
practical complexities of the ruling in an editorial, the UK's
Independent said:
Though [Guantanamo's] Camp Delta prisoners had the right to their day in court, Mr. Bush had not acted illegally when he ordered certain prisoners to be held without charge. The court said he had been given this specific authority by Congress after the attacks of 11 September 2001.
Political fallout from the decisions handed down Monday necessarily
favors Democrats, reports
Knight Ridder in a syndicated column.
...the rulings are a potentially powerful addition to the argument Democrats have been trying to build that Bush has abused his powers... This time, the charges that the Bush administration overstepped its bounds in the war on terror did not come from John Kerry, Al Gore, or Michael Moore. Instead, it was the US Supreme Court, hardly a liberal institution. Republicans, however, see the verdicts as changing few minds not already made up, writes
Knight Ridder.
Charlie Black, a White House adviser, said Americans prefer the aggressive actions Bush is taking in protecting the country. 'I think the voters would say when it comes to terrorists or suspected terrorists, err on the side of being tough on them rather than being too soft on them, and if you get beaten back by the courts, then they should comply,' he said. The
Wall Street Journal praised the Court's decision for stepping "away from the chaos of making judges the arbiters of American security." While Justice O'Connor denied a blank check to the president "when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens," she also outlined the extraordinary deference that "must give considerable deference to the executive" in waging war, even to the extent of inviting "the administration to set up a military court to hear [plaintiffs'] plea," implying "that the military is capable of adequately reviewing challenges brought by the Gitmo prisoners," wrote the
Journal. That the justices were fully engaged in these cases was evident by how their "
language was occasionally passionate, reflecting their awareness of the historic nature of this confrontation between executive and judicial authority," reports the
New York Times. Justice Antonin Scalia's
opinion highlights that fact:
Many think it not only inevitable but entirely proper that liberty give way to security in times of national crisis - that at the extremes of military exigency,
inter arma silent leges. Whatever the general merits of the view that war silence law or modulates its voice, that view has no place in the interpretation and application of a Constitution designed precisely to confront war and, in a manner that accords with democratic principles, to accommodate it.
The verdict does present the Pentagon with a "logistical nightmare," writes
The Times of London. The decisions appear to "mean that the US military may have to grant access to the high security slice of land [Guantanamo] to an army of lawyers."
The
Journal advocates that Congress must "step in with legislation consolidating all of the Gitmo cases in a single court," and recommends that Arlington, Virginia, where the Pentagon is located, be the venue. For the prisoners, the
wheels of justice will continue to grind slowly. "No prisoners are likely to be released from Guantanamo Bay soon," observed the
Independent.
Also...
•
Supreme Rebuke (
Washington Post)
•
The weekly dish - fanatics (
Washington Times)
•
Court documents (
US Supreme Court)
•
Q&A: Toobin: Court did not define 'indefinitely' (
CNN)
• Feedback appreciated. E-mail
Jim Bencivenga
.
|
RSS feed