SCOTUS Hands Terrorists Geneva Convention Protections

The Supreme Court ruled on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld today, handing down a 5-3 decision that extends prisoner-of-war privileges to terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay.  Most notably, the decision holds that it was improper of the Bush administration to subject the detainees to military tribunals.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a strongly worded dissent, saying the court's decision would "sorely hamper the president's ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy."

The court's willingness, Thomas said, "to second-guess the determination of the political branches that these conspirators must be brought to justice is both unprecedented and dangerous." 

The full text of the opinion is here (pdf).

Hot Air has video of the President's reaction.

Lots of reaction in the blogosphere:

SCOTUSblog, Counterterrorism Blog, Right Wing News, Little Green Footballs, Stop the ACLU, Michelle Malkin, Power Line, Captain's Quarters, Wizbang, Sister Toldjah

And on capital hill, where there's a light at the end of this tunnel:

Senator John Cornyn (R-TX):

This is a blockbuster decision, and it will take some time to determine the consequences of what the Court said today. But they’ve opened the door to a legislative remedy, and as Congress plays a key role in this debate, we’ll work with the administration to reach a solution. We’re not talking about simple criminals—these detainees include the most violent terrorists in the world.

Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ):

It is inappropriate to try terrorists in civilian courts.  It threatens our national security and places the safety of jurors in danger.  For those reasons and others, we believe terrorists should be tried before military commissions.

In his opinion, Justice Breyer set forth the path to a solution of this problem.  He wrote, ‘Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary.

We intend to pursue legislation in the Senate granting the Executive Branch the authority to ensure that terrorists can be tried by competent military commissions.  Working together, Congress and the administration can draft a fair, suitable, and constitutionally permissible tribunal statute.

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA):

With permission, we post this letter from a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army reacting to this news:

Dear Congressman Kingston;
...
This morning, I was shocked to hear the news that the Supreme Court has overturned the Presidents wartime authority.

This case has been keenly watched by the uniformed military and it will seriously erode the morale of those serving in the War on Terror.
...
You can now expect that the number of soldiers voluntarily deploying to support the War on Terror will drop significantly. I am on the volunteer list to deploy, but this afternoon I am removing myself because of this SCOTUS opinion. I have heard from other officers this past hour and they are doing the same.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX):

The Court's decision will impede our nation's ability to wage the War on Terror and reveals a frightening lack of understanding about the enemy that we face. We are fighting a transitional network of terrorists with an ideology that calls for the death of Western civilization, not an army.  Congress will work with the President to reach an effective solution to this setback.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC):

It’s not exactly clear at this point what this decision will mean but it appears to lay out a path for Congress to enact legislation, authorizing military commissions to try terrorists in the future.

Folks need to understand that the Court, however misguided its decision may be, did not call into question the government’s power to detain terrorists while hostilities continue.