Top Leaderboard, Site wide
September 23, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Why Are We Bombing Syria?
The Mideast Horrors Grow




A Chronicle of Echoes


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Arts and Culture

Jonathan Shapiro on the Hamdan Case

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Aug 29, 2008
book cover

By Jonathan Shapiro

(Page 2)

The toughest task of Katyal, a former Supreme Court clerk, then 33 years old, was to convince a federal judge to hear Hamdan’s petition to begin with. For any trial court judge hoping for advancement, taking such a petition was professionally risky. The president is responsible for elevating federal judges. The president’s military order creating the tribunals forbade anyone to challenge them. To hear Hamdan’s petition would be to violate the president’s clear intent.

For a year, no judge would do it. Eventually several courageous lower-court judges did take action that eventually led to Hamdan’s case going forward. Foremost among these was Judge James Robertson of the District of Columbia federal court, a former Navy officer himself, who had the temerity to find that any trial conducted without basic procedural safeguards was no trial at all.

Mahler mines the materials available to him to make the rocky climb to the Supreme Court compelling, a neat trick. Trials are theater, inherently dramatic plays with the neat denouement of a verdict in the end. Appeals, in contrast, are tedious, boring affairs in which the issues are limited to the written record, surprise is prohibited, action unheard of, and talking strictly limited. It is designed for scholars, not showmen, and there are rarely clear-cut winners and losers.

Mahler does an admirable job of explaining for the nonlawyer the arcane rules of appellate practice. And he wisely provides just enough flavor of the Talmudic analysis that goes into appellate decisions to make the court’s ultimate decision understandable. If Mahler sometimes gets lost in the minutia of appellate strategy, the 15 moot courts that Kaytal participated in prior to his argument before the court, the challenge of brief page length and font requirements, it is understandable; lesser writers would not have done so well. For the most part, he manages to get out of the thicket with the narrative intact and the suspense building.

By the time Kaytal stands in the bathroom stall of the Supreme Court, singing the theme from “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood” to warm up his voice and settle his nerves, the story has wings; knowing the outcome does not make it any less exciting or satisfying. Kaytal’s argument before the court was a resounding success. By a 5-3 vote, the court eventually held that President Bush had violated the Geneva Conventions and the Constitution by creating tribunals that denied defendants basic rights. 

The Hamdan decision quoted the court’s own ruling in Ex Parte Milligan, over a hundred years earlier, when it found Civil War-era military tribunals unconstitutional: “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protections all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances.” Amen.

Mahler writes with a refreshingly unbiased tone, refusing to take sides, generously concluding that Hamdan was less a rebuff of the Bush administration than “an affirmation of the majesty of America’s constitutional government and the critical role of the courts within.”

Perhaps so, but it was also an extraordinary rebuke of a wartime president. It took the Supreme Court decades to reverse itself on the matter of World War II-era internment camps, yet only a matter of months to strike down Bush’s tribunals. The irony of the commander in chief fighting not one but two wars in the name of American liberty while at the same time curtailing those liberties was characteristically lost on Bush, who immediately sought legislation that would overturn the court’s decision. It was an especially graceless act for a man who owes his very presidency to a Supreme Court decision. But Bush seems incapable of appreciating the manifold ironies that define his reign.

What Mahler could not have known when writing the book is that Bush had inadvertently laid the groundwork for an unexpected twist to the story. Thanks to the president’s efforts, new tribunals were set up and Hamdan eventually went to trial. The military jury acquitted him of the most serious charges, rejected the 30-year term sought by the prosecution, and gave Hamdan a five-year sentence, with credit for time served. He remains in custody, subject to continued incarceration even after the completion of his sentence in a mere six months. Whether he’ll be released and returned to Yemen is not the question; rather it is when.

Mahler never met or talked to Hamdan; such are the restrictions that still apply. One is reminded of Ernesto Miranda, another bad man destined to become synonymous with grand legal principles. The name of Miranda, a rapist and robber, is shorthand for the custodial rights of the accused. The name Hamdan will forever be associated with the limits of presidential power, even in a time of war. Like Miranda, Hamdan is thus a winner in name only. The real beneficiaries are the citizens of the country Hamdan waged war against. The ironies of the Hamdan case abound.

Jonathan Shapiro, a former federal prosecutor, teaches criminal law as an adjunct law professor at the USC School of Law, and writes and produces the NBC television drama “Life.”


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By AnastasiaRomanov, September 1, 2008 at 6:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Mark Twain said, quite some time ago, that people get the government they deserve.  While that may be horrifying, given the present situation, it also fits
well.  Who, aside from the american public and the bizzarre political system we have built, can be considered as responsible for the clowns, fools, wreckers and hypocrites now occupying offices in Washington? ” We have met the enemy and he is us”.
Another quote, this one from Walt Kelly, the late great cartoonist.  Where else in the world is it a sure thing that one can not get elected if one talks, seriously, about the issues?  Disgustedly,
Anastasia

Report this

By nrobi, September 1, 2008 at 5:15 pm Link to this comment

How ironic that the name Hamdan will be remembered for the stunning blow to presidential power in time of war. 
Now, we must demand that Habaeus Corpus be enforced in this sad tale and Mr. Hamdam released. Ex Parte Milligan, not only dealt with the power of a president in time of war, but with the ideal of habaeus corpus. Should not then, Mr. Hamdan, be released by the same government that tried to keep him under wraps, in an illegal and immoral prison, awaiting a show trial for crimes that he did not commit in a war that is not a war?
Of all the injustices that have been perpetrated by this illegal and immoral administration, this ranks as the most immoral and illegal. Why if Mr. Hamdan was acquitted of the most serious charges against him, and given a sentence that included time served, is he not being released? This is the most outrageous and illegal act of all.
As Americans, we must demand that Mr. Hamdan, who has already served his sentence, according to the military tribunal that tried him, be released back to Yemen to be with his wife and children. Are we a country with no heart and soul?  Are we so callous that we cannot forgive?
If the answer is yes, then we will hold many like Mr. Hamdan for eternity, but if we are a law abiding country and we stand for the rule of law, then we must follow the court’s recommendation and release those who are now being held illegally and immorally.

Report this

By troublesum, August 31, 2008 at 6:51 pm Link to this comment

Mahler ought to send Pelosi a complimentary copy of the book since she has said she doesn’t see any evidence of high crimes or misdemeanors on Bush’s part but would be willing to look at any evidence that could be presented.  For that matter send Obama a copy too.

Report this

By samosamo, August 30, 2008 at 10:15 pm Link to this comment

That is as good of a description of a criminal as I could put it. He may not be corrupt but if he is lawless he his criminal and deserves appropriate judgement and sentencing for his crimes along with the real president, dick. I wonder how much the super 3 will actually protect him on the other side IF he gives up power 1.20.2009.

Report this

By Fahrenheit 451, August 30, 2008 at 5:19 am Link to this comment

How utterly ironic; “The name Hamdan will forever be associated with the limits of presidential power, even in a time of war.”  But he may never be released; justice?  Huh?

Report this

By rylly, August 29, 2008 at 6:37 pm Link to this comment

The real beneficiaries are the citizens of the country Hamdan waged war against. “??? 
You just said he was not guilty on charges he made war….he was a driver, he drove a car…over there.  He killed no one.  He had no plans to kill anyone.
He should never have been in GITMO, nor should any others.

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.