Riding with the Devil

Fire of Liberty

Here's an excellent editorial in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on the Hamdan case that will come before the Supreme Court in the coming months. It seems that the Osama bin Laden's driver Salim Ahmed Hamdan has petitioned SCOTUS that he shouldn't be tried by the military tribunals as an "enemy combatant" but should be tried as a soldier in a court martial. Luckily, the editorial board seems to be able to read a law book and things like the Geneva Convention that clearly notes that terrorists do not abide by the rules of war and is thus not entitled to a court martial but you'd think Hamdan and his attorney would know thus by now. I particularly like how the folks at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review summed the whole case, see for yourself:

The Supreme Court ruled decades ago that a military commission may try combatants who operate outside the rules of war.

International treaties -- such as the Geneva Conventions -- do not provide a personal cause of action in federal courts. In any event, Hamdan fought for no nation that was a signatory to the conventions nor for a non-signatory that abided by the conventions.

But it is demanded that the federal courts exercise jurisdiction over a purely military matter, not over whether Hamdan is tried, but how he is tried.

The Supreme Court must allow the commission to proceed. Those who worship at the altar of judicial overreaching may be shocked to learn there are limits to a court's authority.

It'll be interesting to see what Hamdan and his lawyer use to argue their case. I predict a fiery crash for Osama's chauffeur.