No Blank Check

A state of war is not a blank check for the President." The Bush Administration's claims "would turn our system of checks and balances on its head." "If civil rights are to be curtailed during wartime, it must be done openly and democratically, as the Constitution requires, rather than by silent erosion." Nation readers have heard these kinds of things before--from me, the Nation's editors, the ACLU and other usual suspects. But before now, not from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, author of the first two quotes. And certainly not from Justice Antonin Scalia, author of the third. 

These judicial soundbites only begin to suggest the magnitude of the loss the Bush Administration sustained in a pair of historic Supreme Court decisions, issued June 28, on its asserted power to detain "enemy combatants." In the case that received the most complete treatment of the issues, that of US citizen Yaser Hamdi, the Bush Administration was able to persuade only a single Justice--Clarence Thomas--to adopt its position. And the passion of the decisions suggests that the Justices may well have been responding not only to the detention cases before them but also to the Justice Department's August 2002 "torture memo," which argued--along lines that eerily echo the government's argument in the detention cases--that the President in wartime is above the law. As the Supreme Court has now formally reminded the Administration, it's President Bush, not King George. 

The extent of the Administration's loss is brought into relief by comparison with earlier Supreme Court decisions in wartime. The Court has historically bent over backward in deference to claims of national security, upholding the incarceration of more than 1,000 people for antiwar speech during World War I, and the detention of 120,000 Japanese and Japanese-Americans on the basis of race during World War II. The last time the Court confronted the claims of "enemy combatants," during World War II, it refused foreign nationals incarcerated abroad any access to the courts, and upheld without opinion death penalties imposed in a secret trial on several would-be saboteurs captured here, writing its opinion only after the defendants had been executed. 

This time, the Court pointedly refused to defer to the Administration during wartime. It ruled that foreign nationals held at Guantnamo have a right to file habeas corpus petitions in federal court to challenge the legality of their detentions. And in Hamdi's case, it established that US citizens are entitled at a minimum to a fair hearing on whether they are "enemy combatants" before they can be held for a sustained period. The Court ducked the third case--that of Jos Padilla, a US citizen arrested at O'Hare airport--on jurisdictional grounds; his lawyers filed their challenge in the wrong court. But it is clear that when he refiles in the correct court, Padilla will be entitled to at least as much as Hamdi, and perhaps more. 

The rulings do not mean that the detainees will necessarily be released anytime soon. The Court rejected, for example, the broadest challenge to the detention of US citizens. In the Hamdi case, a majority ruled that Congress's authorization of the use of military force against Al Qaeda and those who harbor them permits the executive to hold in military custody even US citizens who are fighting for the enemy against us. 

But the rulings do make it likely that all the detainees will get some sort of hearing to assess their status. In Hamdi's case, the Court specified what process was due: notice of the charges and an opportunity to contest them before an impartial adjudicator. The Court did not reach the question of what process the Guantnamo detainees are due, because the only question before it was whether the detainees could even file a case in federal court. But there will be tremendous pressure now to give them what the Geneva Conventions require: a hearing before a military commission to determine their status. 

The broader significance of the rulings lies in their ringing rejection of the argument that to defeat terrorism, the executive must have unfettered discretion. Since September 11, the Administration has repeatedly insisted that citizens (and indeed the world) should just "trust us." George W. Bush has done more than perhaps anyone to demonstrate the poverty of that theory. We've been asked to trust him about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, torture of detainees, the designation of enemy combatants, alleged relationships between Al Qaeda and Iraq, and the privacy and liberty of American citizens. With any luck, the Supreme Court's message--that we trust checks and balances, not imperial presidents--will be heard far and wide.

Source: The Nation

Related Suggestions

The opinions expressed herein, through this post or comments, contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. These are offered as a means for IslamiCity to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization. The IslamiCity site may occasionally contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. IslamiCity is making such material available in its effort to advance understanding of humanitarian, education, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and such (and all) material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Older Comments:
Very good example of how the Constitution works. The "founding fathers" realized the potential for the misuse of power, and provided these "checks and balances" to curtail abuses such as we have seen with the Bush administration. It is not a speedy process, it shouldn't be, but it has worked pretty well for the USA. As Americans, we need to pay closer attention to what our government is doing in our name!!! Watch some PBS shows like Frontline, Now, or at least, the Newshour. Check out the BBC, or other foreign news services. If you don't really understand something; religious, cultural, political issues, then find out!!

I apologize for this comment straying too far perhaps from this article's content. I wish to point out that America has traditionally provided political asylum for the oppressed of other nations. If Americans allow themselves to act as jailers (or as bounty hunters) of dissidents fleeing persecution then, in my opinion, America will pay a heavy price for agreements of questionable value.

Given the present state of affairs, I would be concerned for example for Iranian dissidents here in America if America were to suddenly enjoy improved relations with Iran. I personally know of at least one rather out-spoken (and Iranian) opponent of Zionism who praise Allah has thus far enjoyed safe-haven here in America - presumably due to some sort of disagreement with the authorities in Iran. At present my concern might seem to be at best obscure. However as stories of relationships between America and for example various interests in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan continue to unfold - before the American people (insha'Allah) - then perhaps my concern might begin to seem more relevant.

To whom it may concern, I would hope to express an additional thought. Why anyone would ever feel embarrassed for having opposed Stalinism is simply beyond me. God be praised that the threat posed by Stalinism appears to be greatly diminished. America might perhaps now appear to be engaged in a test of wills with at least a few of its former allies (with designs of their own) in the struggle against Stalinism - might it not? May I respectfully suggest that someone who was involved in that struggle begin to bind a seemingly overwhelming collection of facts into a readily understood context (if they are not already doing so) before present-day Americans begin to forget what that struggle was really about? Do half of Americans today even remember? Would it be better to wait until most Americans suppose all Soviets were the same as Gorbachev?