The Logic Behind Supreme Court’s Anti-Bush Ruling

The Supreme Court of the United States of America yesterday ruled against President Bush’s plans to try Guantanamo inmates in military courts. This means President Bush has no alternative other than trying those suspects—of which only ten have been charged—in US civil courts. In this post I aim to explain the logic behind this decision.

The key controversy surrounding this case was whether or not to accept the Guantanamo inmates as prisoners of war; and, subsequently, whether or not to deal with them as per the provisions of the Geneva Convention. President Bush and company refused to deem them prisoners of war, and, therefore, refused to treat them according to the Geneva Convention. The judges, citing article 3 of the Convention, ruled that Al-Qaeda combatants are prisoners of war and that they deserve treatment according to the Geneva Convention.

Article 3 provides:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

  1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.”

The military tribunals, carrying out the trials of the detainees, are authorized by President Bush to:

  • Provide evidence acquired by torturing the defendants
  • Assert pressure on the defendants’ attorneys otherwise not allowed in civilian courts
  • Keep parts of the trial secret from the defendant.

However, all three of these authorities provided by President Bush are against the Geneva Convention. Again, according to the Convention:

… the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Hence, the judges ruled President Bush’s decision to try Guantanamo inmates in military tribunals illegal. However, it may reasonably be inferred, that the suspects kept at Abu Ghraib and Bagram (Afghanistan), may also have to be tried in civilian courts.

Links worth visiting:

Tags: Socialize: blogmarks | | Furl | kinja | Newsvine | Raw Sugar | reddit | Rojo | Simpy | Spurl | Tailrank | Technorati | Yahoo My Web


3 Responses to “The Logic Behind Supreme Court’s Anti-Bush Ruling”

  1. 1 EuroYank June 30, 2006 at 5:48 pm

    Great Blog! Easy to read. Well written. Great colors!

  2. 3 SpliceKiama July 3, 2006 at 8:08 am

    Erm, “anti-Bish” Ruling?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


I no longer update this weblog due to academic and other preoccupations. However, feel free to browse through its older entries. Thanks.
This is a weblog where a journalism enthusiast Afghan student writes about hot contemporary issues from an Afghan perspective. Enjoy your visit! Contact: mail . myscribbles @ gmail . com

Pictures from Afghanistan

Blog Stats

  • 67,131 Visits Since March 2006

%d bloggers like this: