Ryan De La Rosa

Newswriting

The Geneva Convention

The Supreme Court has overturned the Bush Administrations approach for
handling prisoners from the Iraq War.
The main suspect on trial was petitioner Salim Ahmed Hamden, a Yemini
national, who was in custody at an American prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. A
year after he was captured, the President deemed him eligible for a trail for
unspecified crimes which later turned out to be a count of conspiracy. Hamden filed
many petitions, including one for habeas corpus, to challenge the executive branch
because he believed that this charge was not a violation of the law of war. Before
the District Court ruled on his petition, he received a hearing from the military
tribunal, which targeted him as an enemy combatant.
Back in November 13, 2001, when the U.S. was still in active combat with
Taliban the President issued a military order designed for the detention, treatment,
and trials of certain non-citizens in the war against terrorism. On July 3, 2003 was
when the President announced that Hamden and five other prisoners were triable
by military commission. Hamden was charged with being a part of conspiracy. It
was stated that Hamden willfully and knowingly joined an enterprise of people who
shared a common criminal purpose and conspired and agreed with the members of
Al-Qaeda. He allegedly attacked civilians, murdered people, and committed acts of
terrorism. Finally, on November 8, 2004, the District Court for the District of
Columbia granted Hamdens habeas corpus petition. It was decided that the
Presidents authority to establish military commissions only applies to offenders or
offenses triable by military commission under the law of war. Therefore Hamden
was entitled to the protections of the Third Geneva Convention treaty until he is
adjudged. He is not be viewed as a prisoner of war so when the military mission
decided to try him it violated both the UCMJ and Common Article 3 of the Third
Geneva Convention. It was seen as a violation because it had the power to convict
based on evidence the defendant would never see or hear which is wrong.
However the Circuit Court of appeals for the District of Columbia reversed
the decision because they believed the Geneva Convention could not be enforced in
a federal court. Also, Congress authorized the military tribunals so there was
nothing unconstitutional about the trial. But in the end, the Supreme Court said that
neither an act of Congress nor the inherent powers of the Executive branch
described in the Constitution authorized the military commission involved in this
case. Since the authorization was missing the commission had to follow the ordinary
laws of the U.S. and the laws of war. Therefore, the Geneva Convention could be
enforced in this trial and due to Hamdens exclusion from the trial because of this
the military commission violated these laws making the trial illegal.