Rule of Law
A roundup from SCOTUSBlog:
it is hard to overstate the principal, powerfully stated themes emanating from the Court, which are (i) that the President’s conduct is subject to the limitations of statute and treaty; and (ii) that Congress’s enactments are best construed to require compliance with the international laws of armed conflict.
Even more importantly for present purposes, the Court held that Common Article 3 of Geneva applies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today’s ruling. The commissions are the least of it. This basically resolves the debate about interrogation techniques, because Common Article 3 provides that detained persons “shall in all circumstances be treated humanely,” and that “[t]o this end,” certain specified acts “are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever”—including “cruel treatment and torture,” and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” This standard, not limited to the restrictions of the due process clause, is much more restrictive than even the McCain Amendment. See my further discussion here.
This almost certainly means that the CIA’s interrogation regime is unlawful, and indeed, that many techniques the Administation has been using, such as waterboarding and hypothermia (and others) violate the War Crimes Act (because violations of Common Article 3 are deemed war crimes).
It is about the rule of law.
It’s not as important as, say, perjuring oneself about receiving oral sex in the context of a civil sexual harassment lawsuit, but important nonetheless.
Let me make something clear:
1. The horrific actions of our enemy does not give the US carte blanche to violate international and domestic law.
2. The actions of the United States should not be compared to the actions of the enemy. They should be compared with the standards set forth by law and the rest of the civilized, western, democratic world.
3. There are ways to combat al Qaeda without resorting to illegal measures.
4. Now I understand why the Bush Administration was so opposed to signing on to the International War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague.
