On Thursday, June 29, the US Supreme Court ruled on the case of Hamdan v.Rumsfeld, a case in which a foreigner accused of being Osama bin Laden's driver and bodyguard was to be tried by the Bush adminstration through the process of military tribunal. Since OCngress first convened in 2001 to initiate responses to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US, the Bush administration has undergone a strategic plan of NOT asking for a declaration of "War", which is required for the President to use US troops. Since no was was declared, thought the Bush people, all enemies apprehended would not be held as "Prisoners of War" under the Geneva Conventions, but instead as "Enemy Combatants". Regardless of the Conventions, the CONSTITUTION is clear: either declare War or don't use the troops, and don't hold the prisoners under military rule. The Hamdan case was decided in such a manner as to tell Bush that Hamdan was to be tried under civil statutes, not military ones, but the Hamdan ruling did not go far enough. The justices should have EXPLICITLy stated that the military operation in Iraq was unconstitutional. We have a set of rules for the operation of this nation, and neither Congress nor the White House nor the Supreme Court.

For more information, see the Amicus Brief filed by the Cato Institute:http://www.cato.org/pubs/legalbriefs/salim_ahmed_handan-v-donald_rumsfeld.pdf