November 7, 2005
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case on Military Tribunals
By DAVID STOUT

WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 - The Supreme Court agreed today to take a case involving Osama bin Laden's driver that presents a major test to the Bush administration's military tribunals for foreign terror suspects.

The justices will review the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who was captured in Afghanistan and charged with conspiracy to commit attacks on civilians, murder and terrorism.

The court's announcement today was a disappointment to administration lawyers, who had argued forcefully that it was premature for the justices to get involved because Mr. Hamdan, who is being held at the Guantánamo Bay naval base in Cuba, has yet to have a full trial.

Mr. Hamdan has maintained through his lawyers that, even though he was a driver for Mr. bin Laden, he was not a member of Al Qaeda and never took up arms against Americans or their allies. His trial was abruptly halted one year ago tomorrow by a federal district judge in Washington, who ruled that the military commissions violated the Geneva Conventions and the United States Constitution.

The district judge's ruling was overturned unanimously last July by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In a big victory for the administration, the appeals court held that trying some detainees before military commissions did not violate the Constitution, international law or American military law, as the district judge had concluded.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales hailed the circuit court's ruling when it was handed down. "The president's authority under the laws of our nation to try enemy combatants is a vital part of the global war on terror," he said, asserting that the decision "reaffirms this critical authority."

But Neal K. Katyal, a Georgetown University law professor who has represented Mr. Hamdan, expressed dismay and declared that the circuit court ruling "places absolute trust in the president, unchecked by the Constitution, statutes of Congress and longstanding treaties ratified by the Senate of the United States."

The case of Mr. Hamdan is one of several since the Sept. 11 attacks that involve potential conflicts between national security and personal freedom. Today's announcement that the Supreme Court would take the case disappointed administration lawyers, who had maintained there was no need for the justices to intervene before a verdict.

Last July, Judge John G. Roberts was on the District of Columbia Circuit and ruled against Mr. Hamdan. Now, he is the new chief justice of the United States. Assuming that he does not take part in the Hamdan case when it is argued before the Supreme Court, there is a possibility of a 4-to-4 ruling, which would uphold the Circuit Court's ruling without setting a precedent for future cases.