Bush, Rumsfeld and the Supremes
by Karen Kwiatkowski
Many are hailing last week's Supreme Court 5-3 ruling in the case Hamdan vs Rumsfeld.
Detainees now have a right to at least the minimum protections guaranteed in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
It was a 5-3 ruling. It would have been 5-4, but Chief Justice John Roberts was recused for having ruled for the government in an earlier hearing along these same lines.
The Supreme Court ruled that the military commissions or tribunals were unauthorized by federal and international law. It upheld the idea that Geneva Conventions apply to all detainees. This ruling succeeds in making the United States appear to be more like a Republic, instead of a military empire led by tinpot trollops of the Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld variety.
The court appointed military defender of Bin Laden driver Salim Ahmed Hamdan is
Navy JAG officer, Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift. William Arkin calls him “The Hero of Guantanamo.' Commander Swift's arguments on the law, and justice too, convinced a narrow majority of Justices to admit that maybe, just maybe, it isn't prudent to return
to the days of Lincoln.
Unlike 150 years ago in America, there is no war today. Yet,
the historic actions of another obsessive over-reaching executive may foretell the future as we watch this timid Supreme Court dare to rule, with hesitancy, caution and caveats.
George W. Bush, with Cheney and Rumsfeld holding his train (or is that a leash?) continues to strut. He incessantly refers to himself as Commander in Chief of the American people.
He is not, of course. We hear morning, noon, and night about the “war' in Iraq, in Afghanistan, on terrorism, even still the “war' on drugs. But the only real war the government of the United States is fighting today is a war on our republic, a war on the Constitution.
Perhaps this false idea that America is “at war' is why so many are elated that the Supreme Court has ruled for the Constitution, for law and justice. In fact, there should have been little judicial debate on the outcome of the case. It should have been, as George Tenet famously lied to the President, a “slam dunk.'
In our constitutional republic, dilapidated as it may be, protections of the individual from the state are paramount – and fundamental. In other words, individual rights rule by default in a Republic constituted as this one was. Our nation was founded on the radical ideas of classical liberals throughout Europe who were busy challenging kings and tyrants -- intellectually, spiritually, morally, and on bloody battlefields.
In other words, untrained monkeys in dresses could have determined the correct outcome of Hamdan vs Rumsfeld. In fact, the case should have never reached the Supreme Court. Lower ranking monkeys in dresses (this would include Chief Justice Roberts at the time) ought to also have been able to figure out constitutional from dictatorial.
Yet – we the people in America, and indeed the world – breathe easier that this ruling of five to three on a court of nine robed judges. We hope against hope that this means classical liberal ideals have been sustained, and ultimately sustainable, in America.
In other news, the New York Times – a paper that, with the loyal dedication of a Goebbellian chief of staff, reported administration lies as truth in the run-up to the Iraq invasion – is now suddenly a den of traitors for reporting old news about the President's over-extension of powers in violation of law and against American citizens.
Thus, we celebrate the latest court ruling. It is just, and laudable. The military career of defense attorney Commander Charles Swift is naturally ending rapidly. Already passed over for promotion during the past year as Hamdan's appointed attorney, his promotion now would take action from Rumsfeld himself, and it appears that vote of confidence will not be forthcoming. Of course, Rumsfeld's blessing would be one of the few things that could actually blemish Swift's outstanding record.
Swift will be extremely valuable to America as a civilian attorney, and as a hero who has successfully argued for rule of law, and justice. He has remained untainted by the sick contempt for law and justice that has infected much of the Pentagon, the White House, and unfortunately, many in the Congress.
But the importance of the Supreme Court ruling may have been overstated in the American press. This small battle, ostensibly won for the Constitutional separation of powers and for rule of law, is already fomenting both executive and congressional actions to ensure a further strangulation of freedom and liberty in this country. In a sense, it does not lead us away from militaristic nationalism or imperial conceit.
Because the UCMJ is quoted as a minimum standard of detainee rights,
Bush will seek to alter it. The ruling notes that if the Congress is unhappy with the ruling on Hamdan vs Rumsfeld, it may legislate accordingly. We have today a Congress that will enthusiastically pass legislation that applies solely to a single non-speaking invalid on a hospital bed in Florida. That does not bode well for how this Congress might legalistically ensure that everyone knows which “side' they are on in the so-called “war on terror.'
Celebrate a battle won; this ruling is indeed that. But the war on the American Republic is today being won by the enemies of freedom and liberty in Washington, D.C. It will take many more Commander Swifts, and the replacement of more than a few politicians in November to ensure that the promise of this small victory at the Supreme Court will be fulfilled.
© 2006 Karen Kwiatkowski
militaryweek.com |
