Supreme Court Rules on "Enemy Combatants"

A landmark Supreme Court ruling was announced Thursday rejecting president Bush's claims that those captured in the "War on Terror" -- often referred to as "enemy combatants" -- are not protected by the Geneva Conventions, and can thus be detained indefinitely without recourse to courts (story here). The ruling held that the Bush administration's classification of "enemy combatants" -- in this case, Yemeni terror suspect Salim Ahmed Hamdan -- as separate from prisoners of war and not subject to regulations regarding POWs was illegitimate. This decision stands in agreement with previous widespread criticism that the "enemy combatant" labeling was legally meaningless and served only as an excuse to deprive detainees of fundamental rights.

The court found that those previously classified as "enemy combatants" have rights specifically under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits "passing of sentences" unless such sentences are passed down by "a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." In practical terms, this means that detainees at Guantanamo Bay and in other detainment locations around the world should have the right to appeal their detainment in American courts, rather than military tribunals. Furthermore, the ruling held that the Red Cross should be granted access to all detainment facilities, in order to assure adherence to the Geneva Conventions.

Some members of the Bush administration have denied that the ruling sets any widely applicable precedent, saying that the decision applies only to Hamdan. Others within the administration were more cautious, saying that the decision was being reviewed in order to determine its impact outside of the Hamdan case. The decision, as rendered by the Supreme Court, is generally being interpreted as being applicable to all "enemy combatants" and detainees at various locations throughout the world.