Gitmo Driver Drives Supremes

I know it's a good thing to have Osama's driver in the joint, but I am somehow left wanting.

I should note that I know little about law. I've had attorneys sue a few clients for money owed over the years, but that, and some real estate law are the only things with which I have any experience. I'm not going to play legal expert. Okay? Good.

I'll let the CS Monitor set the table.

WASHINGTON -- A year and a half ago, the US Supreme Court delivered a blunt message to the White House: War is not a blank check entitling the president to violate the constitutional liberties of American citizens.

The decision resulted in the release of Yasser Hamdi, a dual US and Saudi citizen, who had been held indefinitely in a military prison without charge or access to a lawyer.

On Monday, the nation's highest court set the stage for the next major constitutional showdown over President Bush's ongoing war on terror. The issue is whether the president has the authority to put AlQaidaa suspects on trial before military commissions at the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

In agreeing to take up the appeal of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, the high court will examine government efforts to empanel a military-run war-crimes tribunal to weigh charges against Mr. Hamdan and three other terror suspects.

Such tribunals mark the first time in a half-century that the US government is relying on ad hoc military commissions to mete out justice rather than civil federal courts or the military justice system.

Of course, this White House appears to ignore 'blunt messages.' Be they in the form of a Supreme Court ruling, or a Presidential Daily Briefing stating that "bin Laden [is] Determined To Strike in US."

Vacationing is so much more fun than national security - unless your accomodations are at Camp X-Ray. But I digress.

A bit more:

The Hamdan case raises fundamental issues, including the scope of the president's power to detain and place on trial any foreign national deemed to be an enemy combatant. In urging the high court to take up the Hamdan case immediately, Hamdan's lawyer, Neal Katyal, drew upon a lesson from American history. He compared the Hamdan dispute to landmark Supreme Court case upholding the supremacy of civilian courts over an effort by President Abraham Lincoln to rely on military tribunals to quickly and efficiently prosecute suspected supporters of the Confederacy.

"At issue is whether the president can supersede established civilian and military judicial systems," Mr. Katyal says in his brief. "No graver question was ever considered by this court, nor one which more nearly concerns the rights of the whole people," he writes, quoting Ex Parte Milligan, an 1866 Supreme Court decision.

Of note to the curious, yet uninformed observer(that would be me):

1) Chief Justice John Roberts has recused himself from the case.

2) Allegedly, Hamdan was Osama's driver(motor vehicle, not camel - Osama only had one driver?) and is charged with being a member of al-Qaida.

Go ahead and read the article. It has lots of quotes from people with actual experience in matters of law. My concern is not only to point out that this White House cherry-picks what is or is not important - hence what to ignore - but to flag this case as one that seemingly has great implications for the governmental separation of powers. A fight which is being waged even as I type.

I also hope to not fall into the legal black-hole reserved for 'enemy non-combatants.'