Top court sidelines plan for tribunals

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a major blow to President Bush's plan to use military tribunals for prosecuting terror suspects, ruling that such trials — as designed by the Defense Department — would violate U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions.

The 5-3 decision does not bar future tribunals entirely, and justices did not consider whether the Constitution prohibits special court proceedings. In a concurring opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer noted that "nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary."

In response to Thursday's ruling, Bush said he would work with lawmakers to specifically authorize special military courts for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"We will work with Congress," Bush said. "I want to find a way forward."

The high court's ruling in the case, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, at least temporarily sidelined the administration's plans to use military tribunals to prosecute at least 14 and as many as 80 detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Roughly 450 foreigners suspected of having ties to al-Qaida or the Taliban are now in custody at the U.S. naval base.

The decision came in one of the most significant terrorism-related cases argued before the high court since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Two years ago, the court said the administration could not indefinitely detain suspected terrorists — whether foreign nationals or U.S. citizens — without giving them a chance to challenge their treatment in U.S. courts.

In the case decided Thursday, Osama bin Laden's former personal driver and bodyguard, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, had challenged the administration's plan to try him before one of the military commissions. Hamdan, who was captured in Afghanistan in November 2001, was labeled an "enemy combatant" and charged with conspiracy to commit terrorism.

Justice Anthony Kennedy cast the swing vote, joining the court's four liberal justices in opposition to the tribunals. Newly installed Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., did not participate in the case because he had ruled on it previously as a federal appeals court judge.

It was the appeal of that ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit validating the tribunals that put the case before the Supreme Court.

Writing for the high court's majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said the Defense Department's current rules for the tribunals violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions.