Supreme Court Rules Against Gov't In Gitmo Case / Administration Lawyer: “It’s very broad, it’s very significant, and it’s a slam.”

(NOTE: Updated in the middle with some thoughts on critics of the decision.)

Yesterday, the Supreme Court ended its current session by handing down the long-awaited decision in the Guantanamo case- Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The decision declares that President overstepped his authority in some actions surrounding the controversial prison. The ruling was written by Justice Stevens and a concurring opinion by Justice Breyers notes that "Congress has not issued the executive a 'blank check'", something which could have ripple effects on many of the administration's other abuses of power- warrantless wiretapping, etc... The dissenting Justices were- not surprisingly- Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Chief Justice Roberts had to recuse himself from the case because he had already ruled in favor of the government as a lower court judge.

AP: Supreme Court blocks Bush, Gitmo war trials

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.

The ruling, a strong rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and international Geneva conventions...

That last point now establishes that prisoners in Bush's war on terror are indeed guaranteed Geneva protections that all prisoners of war must receive, much to the chagrin of people like Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Alberto Gonzales. As Hamdan's attorney, Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift, said on Hardball last night, "It's not whether they deserve [Geneva protections] or not. It's how we conduct ourselves. Where if we say, that our opponent can cause us not to follow the rules anymore, then we've lost who we are. We're the good guys. We're the guys who follow the rules. And the people we fight are the bad guys, and we show that everyday when we follow the rules regardless of what they do. It's what sets us apart. It's what makes us great. And in my mind it's what makes us undefeatable, ultimately."

Andrew Sullivan summarizes the significance of this ruling-

The more you read, the more you see what a body-blow this is to our quasi-monarchical president. The ruling clearly states that the interrogation methods currently authorized by Rumsfeld and the CIA are unlawful. There's also a warning against the over-broad executive interpretation of Congress's Authorization for the Use of Military Force - which implicates the NSA program. Big news, methinks. The Founders have not been disproved. This constitutional system works, even in wartime, and even under an administration with demonstrable contempt for the rule of law.

Translation- Even King President George is not above the rule of law.

Glenn Greenwald twice analyzes the significance of the Hamdan decision, noting that "the Court categorically rejected, and even attacked, the Bush administration's radical theories of unlimited executive power. While it's obviously the case that the decision is far from a silver bullet solution to this administration's abuses of power -- those abuses can be genuinely ended only through political victory, not litigation -- only those attached to the joys of cynicism and defeatism can deny the importance of the Hamdan ruling as a step towards restoring the rule of law in this country... [The decision] imposed meaningful checks and limits on the President's powers, and they resoundingly rejected the plainly un-democratic claim that invocations of 'national security' vest unchecked power in the President."

The President's supporters in the press, meanwhile, deride the Court decision, with the NY Post bloviating that we are in the midst of WWIII and that the ruling turns the Constitution into a "suicide pact". No comment.

Bush's defenders are somehow trying to decry this as a defeat in our struggle against terrorism (because it's the only line of argument they know anymore), but that's illogical as usual. This decision does not prevent the President from prosecuting or trying suspected terrorists. What it says is that he must do so in accordance with the law and not simply the rules which he makes up at will. If the President has been doing everything on the up-and-up, then this should not be a problem for him at all. Of course, the numerous questions surrounding Guantanamo (how many prisoners there are actually terrorists at all, what interrogation methods were used to coerce information, where they were taken from, denial of legal counsel, etc) put him in an awkward position.

In related news, despite earlier statements hinting that the administration would follow the Court's lead in how to proceed with the prison, President Bush insists that he will not be deterred in his Guantanamo plans. Bush, citing the "drive-by briefing" he received on the decision, ran out yesterday afternoon and declared this-

After a Supreme Court decision overruling war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees, President Bush suggested Thursday he would seek Congress' approval to proceed with trying terrorism suspects before military tribunals.

"To the extent that there is latitude to work with the Congress to determine whether or not the military tribunals will be an avenue in which to give people their day in court, we will do so," he said. "The American people need to know that the ruling, as I understand it, won't cause killers to be put out on the street."...

Translation- "Don't tell me my business, Supreme Court! I gots evildoers to vanquish!" Senator Frist, not surprisingly, has volunteered to lead this fight in the Senate for the President. Congressional hearings are likely, though with Guantanamo so unpopular, I am curious whether Republicans will want to defend the President's position (or perhaps declare their own way) with elections so soon. And thus the saga continues...

Still, this is a landmark decision and shows this war hasn't completely eroded our principles.

[Related reading:
-NY Times: Ruling Leaves Uncertainty at Guantánamo
-Washington Post analysis: A Governing Philosophy Rebuffed
-SCOTUSblog: Hamdan Summary -- And HUGE News

NY Times timeline infographic: The Supreme Court on Detainee Cases]