So, some of y'all may have heard. The Supreme Court of the United States made the papers yesterday.
The ruling, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and international Geneva conventions.Wow.
Here's the Case Law (Warning, PDF + 185 pages!!) Thanks, Slate! You can read the whole thing, but the good stuff starts on page 9, then quickly disentigrates into very specific legality concerning this one very specific case.
[Hamdan's] objection is that the military commission the President has convened lacks such authority, for two principal reasons: First, neither congressional Act nor the common law of war supports trial by this commission for the crime of conspiracy—an offense that, Hamdan says, is not aviolation of the law of war. Second, Hamdan contends, the procedures that the President has adopted to try him violate the most basic tenets of military and internationallaw, including the principle that a defendant must bepermitted to see and hear the evidence against him.
Anyway, it was a 5-3 decision (Chief Roberts recused) which means it is an effective 5-4. Like so many things in America today, it is split right down the middle with one side winning the push. And like so many things in America today, the winners are taking their victory laps and the losers are losing their minds. A certain Congressman's blog suggests that this decision will destroy troop morale.
The Technorati Roundup