Seraphim
04-19-2004, 01:04 AM
The US Supreme Court will this week intervene for the first time in the national and international debate over the US war on terror and its hundreds of detainees.
Over the next 10 days, the justices will hear cases involving foreign prisoners held at the US naval base at Guantnamo Bay in Cuba, as well as two cases involving US citizens being held as "enemy combatants".
The cases will give the justices their first chance to ****ounce on the legality of the anti-terror campaign pursued by the Bush administration since the September 11 2001 attacks. America's highest court had remained on the sidelines, as cases challenging the administration's tactics have made their way through the lower courts.
All the cases test the balance between civil liberties and security. But legal experts do not expect grand ****ouncements from the justices on these broad issues - or a comprehensive set of rules for the war on terror.
Even so, the cases are expected to prove the most important test yet of the power of the executive branch to conduct a war-on-terror campaign, and the courts' role in reviewing its actions.
"The legal stakes are extremely high," said Steven Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) (ACLU).
The ACLU has written "friend of the court" briefs urging the Supreme Court justices to rein in the Bush administration's "unbridled discretion to wage war as it wishes".
The cases have attracted a large number of other such briefs, including one from 175 members of both houses of the British parliament - believed to be the first time that British lawmakers have filed such a brief with America's highest court. This is yet another sign of the growing internationalisation of the court, which has increasingly begun to look beyond America's borders for answers to the legal questions before it.
The Guantnamo cases, which have provoked international outcry, will be heard tomorrow. But the question before the court in those cases is limited: the justices will not be deciding the legality of the detention of some 600 foreign nationals at Guantnamo, but the narrower question of whether the detainees should have access to US courts to challenge their imprisonment.
Lower courts have refused to allow the detainees access to the US civilian justice system, ruling that US courts lack jurisdiction to hear the cases because Guantnamo Bay is technically under Cuban sovereignty. The ACLU says this leaves the detainees "in a legal limbo that international law does not contemplate and that American constitutional law does not permit".
In the second set of cases, which will be heard on April 28, the justices will review the indefinite detention of US citizens as "enemy combatants" - not at Guantnamo, but in the US itself. The question is whether Mr Bush exceeded his authority in ordering their detention.
All the detainee cases will be closely watched by the rest of the world, but tomorrow the court will also hear another case with big international implications - so big that the European Commission (news - web sites) has been granted leave to argue orally as a friend of the court, a very rare proceeding. That case asks the court to clarify when a company can use a foreign legal proceeding to compel a rival to release confidential records.
Over the next 10 days, the justices will hear cases involving foreign prisoners held at the US naval base at Guantnamo Bay in Cuba, as well as two cases involving US citizens being held as "enemy combatants".
The cases will give the justices their first chance to ****ounce on the legality of the anti-terror campaign pursued by the Bush administration since the September 11 2001 attacks. America's highest court had remained on the sidelines, as cases challenging the administration's tactics have made their way through the lower courts.
All the cases test the balance between civil liberties and security. But legal experts do not expect grand ****ouncements from the justices on these broad issues - or a comprehensive set of rules for the war on terror.
Even so, the cases are expected to prove the most important test yet of the power of the executive branch to conduct a war-on-terror campaign, and the courts' role in reviewing its actions.
"The legal stakes are extremely high," said Steven Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) (ACLU).
The ACLU has written "friend of the court" briefs urging the Supreme Court justices to rein in the Bush administration's "unbridled discretion to wage war as it wishes".
The cases have attracted a large number of other such briefs, including one from 175 members of both houses of the British parliament - believed to be the first time that British lawmakers have filed such a brief with America's highest court. This is yet another sign of the growing internationalisation of the court, which has increasingly begun to look beyond America's borders for answers to the legal questions before it.
The Guantnamo cases, which have provoked international outcry, will be heard tomorrow. But the question before the court in those cases is limited: the justices will not be deciding the legality of the detention of some 600 foreign nationals at Guantnamo, but the narrower question of whether the detainees should have access to US courts to challenge their imprisonment.
Lower courts have refused to allow the detainees access to the US civilian justice system, ruling that US courts lack jurisdiction to hear the cases because Guantnamo Bay is technically under Cuban sovereignty. The ACLU says this leaves the detainees "in a legal limbo that international law does not contemplate and that American constitutional law does not permit".
In the second set of cases, which will be heard on April 28, the justices will review the indefinite detention of US citizens as "enemy combatants" - not at Guantnamo, but in the US itself. The question is whether Mr Bush exceeded his authority in ordering their detention.
All the detainee cases will be closely watched by the rest of the world, but tomorrow the court will also hear another case with big international implications - so big that the European Commission (news - web sites) has been granted leave to argue orally as a friend of the court, a very rare proceeding. That case asks the court to clarify when a company can use a foreign legal proceeding to compel a rival to release confidential records.