Gitmo - Hamdan v. Rumsfeld et al Supreme Court decision

5-3, one abstention:

'a five-justice majority ruled that the commissions, which were outlined by
Bush in a military order on Nov. 13, 2001, were neither authorized by
federal law nor required by military necessity, and ran afoul of the Geneva
Conventions.

'As a result, no military commission can try Salim Ahmed Hamdan, the former
aide to Osama bin Laden whose case was before the justices, or anyone else,
unless the president does one of two things he has resisted doing for more
than four years: operate the commissions by the rules of regular military
courts-martial, or ask Congress for specific permission to proceed
differently.

....

'At the heart of Stevens's reasoning was the observation that an existing
statute, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), already prescribes
broad rules for military commissions, saying that their procedures must
track those of courts-martial unless that is impractical.

'But the administration's commissions, Stevens noted, do not meet this
standard because they deprive defendants of protections that are basic to
the courts-martial. The administration had cited special dangers involved in
fighting terrorism, but Stevens concluded that "nothing in the record before
us demonstrates that it would be impracticable to apply court-martial rules
in this case."

'Additionally, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, a provision that
guarantees "minimum" protections for detainees, applies to the war against
al-Qaeda, and is thus a part of the "law of war," Stevens wrote.

'This means that terrorism suspects benefit from Common Article 3's
prohibition against trials by anything other than "a regularly constituted
court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as
indispensable by civilized peoples."

'Because they were not properly authorized by Congress and do not match
court-martial rules, Bush's military commissions do not qualify, Stevens
wrote.'

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/29/AR2006062900928_pf.html>

The judgement in full:

<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-184>


.

Relevant Pages