Supreme court finds: The President is NOT a King.

Okay, time to look at the Supreme Court ruling with the benefit of a good night's sleep.

What does it mean?

The court appears to have rejected Bush's central premise that , as a "wartime president", he has legal authority that exceeds the powers of international treaties, US courts, and Congress.

By demanding that Bush comply with the Geneva Conventions the Supreme Court have also outlawed torture and the practice of extraordinary rendition.

Some lawyers said the ruling places limits in other arenas of the war on terror, such as Mr Bush's order authorising the National Security Agency to monitor the email and telephone calls of Americans without court oversight. The lawyers said the direction from the court for the Bush administration to comply with Geneva convention safeguards for humane treatment would apply not only to Guantánamo, but the dozens of US detention centres around the world.

The court also reaffirmed the rights of hundreds of inmates, held without charge at Guantánamo for four years, to challenge the legality of their detention in US courts.

Lawyers for the detainees were delighted. "What this says is that the administration can no longer simply decide arbitrarily what it wants to do with people," said Michael Ratner, president of the Centre for Constitutional Rights, which represents about 200 of the men at Guantánamo. But there was no indication that the blow to the White House vision of overarching executive power would hasten the end of a detention regime that has become a symbol of abuse in the war on terror - despite Mr Bush's comments that he would like to close Guantánamo.

Minutes after the ruling the president said he would seek legislation explicitly authorising the tribunals. "To the extent that there is latitude to work with the Congress to determine whether or not the military tribunals will be an avenue in which to give people their day in court, we will do so," he told a press conference.

Justice department officials argued the court had pointed the way out of the legal morass by noting that Congress could pass laws specifically authorising military tribunals. "Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in his opinion.

But the decision does drastically curtail the powers claimed by this White House to override international human rights treaties as well as US military law.

For me the most important part of this finding is that Bush cannot rule as he has done, like a King, deciding which laws he finds convenient and ignoring the rest.

This finding challenges the entire concept that Bush has relied upon since 9-11, namely that - as a "war President" - he can negotiate his way around laws that he finds inconvenient.

The most important part of this finding is the ruling that he cannot. He must abide by international law and the Geneva Conventions.

This, of course, is the antithesis of what Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Gonzales et al have been claiming since 9-11. For this reason alone, I am delighted by the court's findings.

For the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay, this judgement represents a light at the end of the tunnel.

The government will now have to justify it's holding of these men before a court of law by providing actual evidence of wrongdoing rather than broad conspiracy charges.

Joe Margulies, a lecturer at the University of Chicago law school, said the Government would have to defend in court its holding of detainees. He said: "The Government has never done that. If it does not do that... it means it will have to let them go."

There are many who will lament this decision and, no doubt, claim that dangerous men are about to be released into the open.

To them I would only say this: if any of these men are a real danger to the general public then the government should have no difficulty proving this in a court of law. If the government cannot prove this, then you have no right to believe this to be true.

This ruling has, in effect, demanded that Bush show his hand and reveal what he actually has on these people. Does he have any actual hard evidence that these people are "the worst of the worst" or is he relying on circumstantial evidence based on where they were arrested etc, etc.

The demand that the President should obey the rule of law is so basic that it shouldn't even need to be said.

However, we are dealing with an administration that has long believed itself to be above the fray, with a President who believes - as Nixon did - that an action cannot be illegal if it is carried out by a President.

We have basically been dealing with a President who believes that he has the powers of a King.

The court has found that he does not have the powers that he has claimed.

I am not sure what Bush will do next. He will no doubt try to squirm his way out of this. But any person who cares for the rule of law and wishes to see the international codes of behaviour established in the wake of World War Two taken seriously has just received a substantial boost in the arm.

The President is NOT a King. He MUST comply with the law.

Only the most rabid Bush supporter could lament those findings, but to them I can even offer a crumb of comfort.

Would you want Clinton to have had the unlimited power that you have claimed that Bush possesses?

The honest answer would have to be no. And that is why this is a victory for all of us.

Click title for full article.

Related Articles:

Full text of Supreme Court ruling.

Tags: Supreme Court, ruling, Bush, Guantanamo, Bay, King, Geneva Conventions, international law, Presidential, limitations,