Liberty and Justice: Supreme Court Rules on Detainee Cases

On June 28, 2004, the Supreme Court handed down a series of rulings about the rights of what the Bush administration calls "enemy combatants" who have been detained by the United States government on the order of the Commander-in-Chief.

WomenMatter notes that these decisions not only help us to clarify the role of personal liberty within the context of preventing and controlling terror, but also allow us to see the relationships between the executive and judicial branches of government.

First case - Yasar Esam Hamdi

Yasar Esam Hamdi, an American citizen, was detained in 2001 after being captured on the Afghani battlefield. The Bush administration insists he was fighting for Al Qaeda, but Hamdi’s father claims he was a relief worker who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Afghani tribesmen who are a part of the Northern Alliance captured Hamdi (he was allegedly working with the Taliban) and turned him over to U.S. troops in exchange for money. Hamdi has been detained for two years and in that time he has not seen a lawyer, a trial, or even his own family.

What the Court says

The court ruled 8-1 that U.S. citizens being held by the United States as enemy combatants have the right to challenge their imprisonment in American courts.

Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the majority opinion, which said, "We have no reason to doubt that courts, faced with these sensitive matters, will pay proper heed both to the matters of national security that might arise in an individual case and to the constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties that remain vibrant even in times of security concerns."

O’Connor explained that the power over detainees has been unjustly consolidated in the executive branch. She insisted that detainees have the right to challenge their imprisonment and that they have the right to an attorney.

Specifics of the ruling

The nine Supreme Court justices came together and separated on varying aspects of this case.

O’Connor ruled that Congress did authorize, in very limited circumstances, detentions such as Hamdi’s, though that does not cancel out a prisoner’s right to a trial (this right is also known as the writ of habeas corpus). Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Kennedy and Bryer agreed with O’Connor on this point. Although they voted with the majority, Justices Souter and Ginsberg believe that Hamdi should be released because there is not enough evidence to hold him.

Justices Scalia and Stevens, also voting with the majority, argue that the government needs to try Hamdi for treason (a conviction which requires two eye witnesses to a treasonous act) or let him go. Scalia and Stevens offered another option - to have Congress suspend Hamdi’s right to challenge his imprisonment in court. In his opinion, Justice Scalia wrote, "If civil rights are to be curtailed during wartime, it must be done openly and democratically, as the constitution requires, and not through silent erosion through an opinion of this court."

Justice Clarence Thomas was the only dissenter; he believes that the country’s "war against terror" supersedes Hamdi’s liberty. This point of view corresponds with the Bush administration’s position that the president has the right to order the detention of a suspected terrorist, without any interference from the courts.

The Bush administration’s story

Supporters of the Bush administration’s policy have the philosophy that the Commander- in- Chief needs to be able to fight the war on terror as he sees fit, and that the detention of dangerous individuals such as Hamdi has in no way threatened our liberty, but rather, protected it.

From this point of view, the liberties of ordinary American citizens are not at risk. Only those who are planning terror attacks need to worry about the infringement of their civil liberties.

The Court did not agree with this assertion. Sandra Day O’Connor said the court has "made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation’s citizens."

Second Case - Jose Padilla

Like Hamdi, Jose Padilla is an American citizen being held at an Army base in South Carolina although he has not been formally charged and has not seen a lawyer. The Bush administration says that Hamdi and Padilla are "enemy combatants," which the administration differentiates from prisoners of war (soldiers from an enemy nation that have been captured during a war) and from ordinary criminal suspects. The White House feels that these men are in a different class of offenders and so the rights set out in the Geneva Conventions about prisoners of war and in the Constitution about citizens do not apply to them.

The Court’s decision

The Supreme Court avoided Padilla’s case by dismissing it on a technicality. The majority opinion was that Padilla’s lawyers should have filed his petition in South Carolina, where he is being held, instead of in New York, where the warrant for Mr. Padilla was first issued. Further, the majority of justices ruled that the defendant should not be Donald Rumsfeld (the Secretary of Defense), but rather Melanie Marr, who is in charge of the South Carolina brig where Padilla is detained.

Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote this opinion and Justices O’Connor, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy agreed. The dissenting opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said that New York was in fact the proper place to file Padilla’s petition and that the Court should not bypass this case’s main issues: "At stake in this case is nothing less than the essence of a free society. For if this nation is to remain true to the ideals symbolized by its flag, it must not wield the tools of tyrants even to resist an assault by the forces of tyranny." Justices Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer agreed with Stevens.

Once the technical issues are resolved, the Court will likely look at the Padilla case again. And its decision in the Hamdi case is likely to influence their decision. After all, it would be difficult for the court to rationalize holding Padilla without a trial when it has ruled that Hamdi deserves one.

Third case - Guantánamo Bay prisoners

Unlike the Hamdi and Padilla cases, the Guantánamo Bay case does not involve American citizens, but foreigners. 16 detainees of varying nationalities who were captured in Afghanistan and Pakistan and incarcerated at a facility in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, claim that they are innocent and have therefore filed suit against the U.S. government.

A 1950 Supreme Court case says that enemy combatants held outside the United States have no right to a trial - the right of habeas corpus. Therefore, the detainees’ lawyers needed to show that Guantánamo Bay is indeed under American control.

The decision

The Court ruled 6-3 that Guantánamo Bay is functionally a part of the United States, although it belongs to Cuba. This ruling overturns a 2003 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which said that the U.S. lacked jurisdiction to hear detainees’ habeas corpus petitions.

The three Justices that dissented, Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas, said the decision was reckless: "The Commander-in-Chief and his subordinates had every reason to believe that the internment of combatants at Guantánamo Bay would not have the consequence of bringing the cumbersome machinery of our domestic courts into military affairs," Scalia wrote.

This dissenting opinion agrees with the Bush administration point of view that military operations involving prisoners are not a matter for the courts, but for the armed forces and Commander- in-Chief.

But since the Commander-in-Chief is also the president - the head of the executive branch - the issue addresses the balance of power between the branches. Is it the courts’ duty to determine the guilt or innocence of enemy combatants, as O’Connor’s opinion in the Hamdi case suggests, or is it the Commander- in-Chief and military’s duty, as the Bush policy on terror suggests?

Striking a balance At issue is the tradeoff between personal liberties and national security. Is it more important to preserve the Constitutional rights of American citizens or to prevent a possible terrorist attack? Can we do only one or the other? The color of this question changes as you look at it from different angles. Does our right to habeas corpus alter during a time of war. Are there times when protecting the lives of our loved ones is the only thing that really matters?

Discuss this issue with other WomenMatter readers in one of our online forums. If Fair Courts are important to you, sign up for an e alert, and we’ll keep you posted. Inform yourself on this and other issues, then choose a party and send them five dollars. Don’t forget to register to vote and contact your representatives, because your voice matters.

WomenMatter is dedicated to empowering women to participate in the political process. To make a donation, click here.

Posted on: 7/6/2004