Guantanamo Reax: Court Ruling a Victory For U.S. Ideals
The Daily Telegraph, a conservative paper in England, cast the story of the Supreme Court's Guantanamo decision in in quintessentially American terms: One good man takes on the "Powers That Be" and wins.
Call it, Mr. Swift goes to Washington.
"Lt Cdr Charles Swift, 44, an experienced military defence attorney, was expected to draft a simple plea bargain after prosecutors requested the appointment of a lawyer to represent Osama bin -Laden's driver in 2003," the Telegraph reported. "Instead, he launched a series of ground-breaking legal challenges that ended with the ruling by America's highest court that the military commissions backed by Mr Bush for international terrorism suspects were unlawful."
The global commentariat is impressed with Swift's courtroom victory in U.S. v. Hamdan.
"America won," said Il Giornale, a right-wing Italian paper. "Rule of Law," triumphs," said The Peninsula in Bahrain. "Now is the time to end Guantanamo," said Uganda's New Vision. It was, said Spiegel Online, "A Grand Day for Democracy".
"Ask yourself if in any other country outside the liberal democratic West it could have happened that the highest constitutional court ruled against the decisions of the extremely powerful head of the Executive branch at the request of a terrorist prisoner who has sworn to destroy the nation," said Il Giornale.
The consensus was that the court's ruling was a victory for American law, international law, and the image of the United States.
The British reaction focused on the court's defense of the Constitution. The Daily Telegraph, which supported the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 but now calls for withdrawal of British forces, called the decision "a salutary check on an administration that has become arrogant in its disregard for justice." (Reprinted here in South Africa's Business Day.)
"What happened last week was the return of constitutional order," said British expatriate Andrew Sullivan in The Times of London. "The court insisted that the president needed legislative backing for prosecuting terrorists and that he was bound by the laws of warfare passed by Congress. The farcical military tribunals at Gitmo were more suited to a banana republic than the US -- and they had to be scrapped. Torture is illegal in America -- and the president has no authority to say otherwise. What we saw last week, in other words, was the end of a potential rival regime to constitutional government in America."
The French and German press emphasized the court's ruling that the Bush administration had to follow the Geneva Convention standards in treatment of enemy non-combatants.
Le Monde (in French) said the court had "snubbed" the Bush White House with its message that the military code of justice and the Geneva convention govern the rules of war.
The conservative German daily Die Welt, said, "The incarceration of the fighters is not illegal per se," but the Bush administration "must recognize the Geneva minimum standards and have transparent legal consequences according to US law."
The left-leaning Berliner Zeitung hailed the judges' criticism of the U.S. neglect of the Geneva Convention, "for which Bush and his people ... have at best a sneer, and absolutely no respect. Now they will have to acknowledge that their own Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of such an international treaty."
The left-wing DieTageszeitung remains unconvinced that the Bush administration will submit to the Supreme Court's authority, warning "If the government still tries to -- quite possibly successfully -- bypass the judicial rulings, then the basic understanding of the constitutional state in the US would suffer."
Voices From the Muslim World
Arab and Islamic reaction was less strong but generally positive.
The Khaleej Times, one of Middle East news sites most sympathetic to U.S. foreign policy, said "The loud sigh of relief in and outside the US that greeted the court decision goes to underscore the growing concerns over America's gulag around the world."
The court's "reasonably clear message to the commander-in-chief is that he cannot literally do anything he pleases, in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the US Constitution," says the Pakistani daily Dawn.
The Arab News warned the decision might be a "meaningless victory.
"The ruling is simply about the powers of the president. President Bush can therefore quite easily obtain the appropriate authority. All he has to do is ask Congress to change the law," said the editors of the Riyahd daily.
The "real victory" for the detainees and U.S. justice, say the editors of the Riyadh news site, "is the Supreme Court's decision, as part of its ruling, that the Geneva Conventions apply to the detainees. ... It opens the door to what could be a tidal wave of challenges to Guantanamo Bay -- on the treatment of prisoners under the Geneva Conventions and allegations of torture -- none of which the White House will be able to prevent."
Zayn Abidin Rikabi, columnist for the Arab daily Al Sharq Alawsat, said the decision showed American ideals to be admirable but selective. "There is no doubt that the great decision of the US Supreme Court translates the true philosophy of America, America the early model of the struggle for freedom and independence," he said.
But in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he said, America has abandoned its early ideals.
"What is the United States' connection with the starving, repression, destruction, and humiliation of the Palestinians by the Israeli occupation army? The connection is close: functional and practical. Had it not been for the United States' absolute defense of the Israelis' falsehood and tyranny the leaders of Israel would not have embarked on such savage actions. But what is the interest of the United States -- or the real America -- in supporting an aggression similar to the one it had fiercely, resolutely, and proudly resisted more than 230 years ago?"
In Malaysia, Yeo Yang Poh, president of the Malaysian bar, wrote in the New Straits Times that local judges should follow the U.S. court's example.
"Malaysia rightly condemns what is taking place in Guantanamo Bay, where detainees are held on the basis of suspicion and are not given the usual due process of the courts. However, what we are doing in our own country in relation to persons detained without trial is no different. On Thursday, the United States Supreme Court ruled against the United States Government's action at Guantanamo Bay, showing that their judiciary remains independent and vigilant. We must follow suit."
Status Quo For Detainees
Spiegel Online cautions that nothing will change soon for the 450 detainees at the prison facility in the U.S. enclave on the south coast of Cuba.
Lt. Commander Swift told the Telegraph that he had spoken to Afghan-born Hamdan on Thursday afternoon and told him of the ruling through an interpreter.
"I think he was awe-struck that the court would rule for him and give a little man like him an equal chance," he said. "Where he's from, that's not the case."
By Jefferson Morley |
July 5, 2006; 11:12 AM ET
| Category:
Global
Previous: The Hostage and the Picnic |
Next: The Korean Missile Gap
Posted by: Dave | July 5, 2006 04:04 PM
...aside from the fact that King George VIII has packed the court with his "handpicked advisors" (with Gonzalez waiting in the wings), this ruling only goes to show that the Supreme Court is powerless to act without the executive branch.
Until the members of the Bush administration are personally held responsible for such actions, we cannot expect any real change. Like Milosevic, Hussein etc, nothing really changes until a higher power steps in and restores order.
The prisoners in Gitmo will never be tried in a civilian court, and no one in the world, really, is safe from the whims of the US government. Perhaps the tide of tyranny is not so high, after this decision, but it is still high enough to flood most of the world.
Perhaps this is why Sandra O'Connor felt that it didn't really matter whether she remained on the court or not, and resigned her position, and let it be taken by the right-wing zealot Samuel Alito. The bottom line is that the US rules the world. Either cooperate, or get crushed.
Posted by: cc | July 5, 2006 08:10 PM
It's good to hear that so many of our global friends concur with the SC ruling. Jefferson, thanks for re-capping the news from the "peace in our time" editors of the global village...maybe we could allot x number of "detainees" to their respective countries for "proper" jurisprudence. Anyone care to know the details of why we are holding on so tight to those at Gitmo? Before I pop off, I sure would. For those willing to evaluate objectively, might be some eye-opening insights. For others, both pro and con, it won't really matter...there minds are made up. How about it...amybody have reliable details (cc...no more screeds...think)?
Posted by: Tom | July 5, 2006 08:56 PM
For all detainees that have known the American gulag (Bagram, Abou Ghraïb, the Guantanamo death camp, and similar black holes operated by the CIA in all parts of the world), justice is all that matters. As long as it remains "status quo for the detainees", both US law and US justice remain purely formal. Nothing to be proud of, really, only an additional source of shame, however much all this legalese may be of interest to the ruling elements, in US society, who once decided to devote their lives to their futile power game.
Left with skin and bones, we're after the flesh. Left with the corpse, we're after the soul.
Posted by: Robert Rose | July 5, 2006 09:53 PM
Comander Swift is a hero, and also the members of the Supreme Court who support our Constitution along with the Bill of Rights.
But, as long as Bush is in office, and Congress, on both sides of the isle, refuse to impeach him, our Constitution and the rule of Law is threatened.
Posted by: P. J. Casey | July 5, 2006 10:23 PM
The decision was greeted very warmly here in the UK. There has been the feeling, if often unspoken here, that America, or at least its government, has almost gone mad since 9/11. But now the proper balance is returning.
Human rights cannot be indefinitly revoked as this isn't an all out war and it will probably last for decades at least, assuming it ever ends at all.
Posted by: DavidP in the UK | July 6, 2006 05:40 AM
U.S. "ideals"? Could someone please remind me what those are?
The U.S. "ideals" I see are "ideals" of poisoning the planet, undermining the rule of law, abducting civilians and torturing them in secret prisons, invading countries without cause and concocting one lie after another to justify it all.
Please spare us the sanctimony about "U.S. ideals."
Those "ideals" have long ago been exposed as bogus by your government.
Posted by: Jurgen | July 6, 2006 04:21 PM
I agree that "America won" with that ruling. It truly is impressive (and comforting) that there is some shred of checks and balances left in this once-great and possibly-again-respected nation.
Ever since Bush dissolved Congress (as if they hadn't already done it themselves) with the "signing statements", the Founding Fathers had been turning fitfully in their graves. Three cheers for a court that is conservative-packed but still somehow managed to pull some vague memories of high school civics from the dusty reaches of their aged brains.
Posted by: B2O | July 6, 2006 06:23 PM
So I see in the Financial Times that the U.S. is now going to start abiding by the Geneva Convention in its treatment of detainees.
Wouldn't it be great if the U.S. followed that up by abiding by other fundamental tenets of international law -- on arms control, global warming and the International Criminal Court, to name a few.
As long as your nation's leaders assert that the U.S. does not have to abide by the laws that all of the rest of us obey -- that America is, in effect, superior to all other nations in the world -- then digust with and contempt for America will only continue -- and rightly so.
The world is disgusted with your outlaw state. Never has global public opinion been more hostile to the U.S. than it is today.
And it's easy to see why.
You have a leader who believes that your nation alone does not have to abide by the rules of war -- or any other rules, for that matter.
When any powerful nation makes up its own rules and refuses to abide by international law, that only invites other nations to do likewise.
As long as George Bush is in office thumbing his nose at the rule of law, expect more Irans, more North Koreas and more war.
Posted by: Jurgen | July 11, 2006 10:08 AM
Once again the intellectuals and war-mongering neo-conservatives of the world misunderstand why people like me think that the rash response of Israel to a simple kidnapping is not only insane but will inevitably result in a negative result similar to the one that America is experiencing at this time in Iraq.
The use of power by Israel will result in the equal but opposite use of power by those that they oppose. How can that be you may ask? America discovered that is extremely easy for a country that is unopposed in the air, sea and land when it comes to the use of sophisticated weaponry, can wreak material destruction on smaller nations who have no defense for that type of warfare. Germany called the same approach a Blitzkrieg.
America is being taught the same deadly lesson in Iraq that Germany was taught in Russia. That lesson is that the superior numbers of the enemy and the inability of the attacking force to recognize the forces who oppose them is a deadly recipe that leads to disaster.
The arrogant Israelis feel so superior to the rest of the world that they think that they are capable of bucking nature. They think that they have God on their side. God to Israel is America and Europe.
Israel is in the process of proving the old axiom that you should never send a boy to do a man's job. As their casualties rise and the world turns against them because of their brutal response to a simple kidnapping, maybe they will remind the rest of the world why the majority of that world understands that you can't solve problems violently.
As for the leadership of America, if silliness was a virtue, how virtuous they would be.
Posted by: Jim Rush | July 26, 2006 03:13 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Nice summary, Jefferson. Thanks, and Happy Independence Day. The day we celebrate the triumph of "terrorism" over "conventional" warfare. I think there's a lesson here, somewhere.......