04/04/06
By Justin Norris,
Senior Staff Writer
Arguments were heard last week by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the detainment of Osama bin Laden’s former chauffer, Salim Ahmed Hamdan. Hamdan appealed the case from an inferior court which upheld the Bush administration’s policy that Hamdan would not be tried under the rules stated in the Geneva Convention.
The inferior court ruling argues that the detainees of are not conventional war combatants and so should not be eligible for the protections and rights guaranteed under the rules of the Geneva Convention. Conversely, the argument looms over a larger issue than Hamdan’s innocence. It is an argument about the power of the president, the courts, and congress and their roles in the government.
The Washington Post, in a November 8, 2005 issue, wrote that this ruling may be “one of the most significant rulings on presidential war powers since the end of World War II.”
President Bush asserts that questions surrounding the detention of suspected terrorists are matters for him to decide solely as commander in chief. The president holds the power to decide matters of military strategy and when issues of national security arise, he is the supreme law of the land-or so he thinks.
However, the Supreme Court has felt that some of these powers have been exercised without much constraint or self-discipline on the President’s behalf.
There has been overt controversy over detainment in Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot Act, and the disclosure of interrogation of suspects at “black sites” in Eastern Europe by the CIA.
For Americans, the abuse of power by any president is rather disconcerting. We have this inborn anxiety to give individuals power, particularly when we founded a country to rid itself of “tyranny.”
The American Revolution surged because of individual tyranny, as well as many other problems, and so for a president to rise with so much power is frightening.
It is not an extreme claim to parallel “tyranny” with the war powers of a president.
Empirical studies show that wartime is when American presidents gain more security powers as is evident in the present-day Bush administration.
However, Americans have become increasingly resistant to the powers that the president has gained with the emergence of the U.S. Patriot Act and the recent domestic spy controversy.
The role of president is rather unique in terms of government roles.
The constitution emphasizes that role of the Executive Branch as one that enforces the laws of the United States.
The duties of the president and his cabinet are rather opaque; there is no lucid constitutional definition to Bush’s role as president.
However, there is a strict understanding that he enforces whatever Congress may legislate and the Supreme Court may interpret.
However, what threatens the infrastructure of the Executive Branch is when that law-making capability that is afforded Congress is relinquished to the president, especially in terms of military and national security.
The understandings about presidential roles are blurred to form the ideal of a super-legislator.
Then there is the role of the judiciary and its capacity to interfere with American foreign policy.
The only way that it can deal with the problems of foreign policy effectively is subtle.
There are no clear established powers determined in the constitution that give courts authority over foreign policy initiatives created by the president or Congress.
Individual cases such as Hamdan’s are what bring these controversies to light, which can sometimes be ignored by the court.
Nonetheless, there are efforts by Congress to regain the balance of power. Senator McCain and Lindsey Graham both have made efforts for congress to supervise the detainment of Guantanamo Bay suspects as well as put limitations on the Patriot Act.
America certainly has a way of putting things back together - or so we perceive.
To view all articles by this writer Click here.