WASHINGTON June 28, 2004 — In a matter of a few minutes Monday, the Supreme Court unraveled a major component of the Bush administration's legal strategy for fighting the war on terror.

The administration argued that because the nation is at war, it could label terrorist suspects as enemy combatants and allow interrogators unfettered access to try to wring security information from them without interference by lawyers or courts.

The Supreme Court disagreed. It ruled that even enemy combatants deserve at the least a chance to prove in court they are innocent.

"Clearly the administration is now on notice that the historical deference given to the commander in chief in times of war will not apply in this current war on terrorism," said Scott Silliman, a Duke University law professor.

The court said U.S. judges may review appeals on behalf of about 600 detainees from 42 countries being held in Cuba, and that a U.S. citizen being held in the United States can also pursue an appeal and meet with a lawyer.

The detentions and interrogations at the Cuban facility, which opened in January 2002, have been controversial. Prisoners were brought to the base blindfolded, and some believed they would be executed. About 30 prisoners have tried to kill themselves, but the government has maintained detainees have been treated humanely.

One ruling on Monday written by the Supreme Court's most liberal member, 84-year-old World War II veteran John Paul Stevens, said that detainees in Cuba can pursue appeals in American courts to claim their innocence.

The ruling does not deal with whether the inmates are entitled to lawyers or even what U.S. judges should do when confronted with cases filed for one of the detainees.

The Justice Department looked at the positive side, saying it was pleased with the court's holding that it could hold people as enemy combatants. Spokesman Mark Corallo said the intelligence that detainees give up can thwart more terror.

Conservatives, however, worry what will happen next.

"The court could become a substantial impediment to the successful prosecution of the war," said Douglas Kmiec, a Pepperdine University constitutional law professor and former legal adviser to Republican presidents. "One can question the responsibility of a Supreme Court that invites litigation. They've invited it here in spades."

Civil libertarians celebrated.

Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said that the court unflinchingly flexed its muscle in a ruling that shows "the Bush administration's war on terror has eroded constitutional rights and respect for the rule of law."

Joseph Margulies, an attorney for prisoners in Cuba, called it an "emphatic reinforcement of the resilience of the Bill of Rights."

"You don't simply hold people in a lawless void based on an executive say-so," he said.

The rulings force the Bush administration to re-evaluate the way it detains terror suspects, a central part of its war on terror. The government may try in the future to hold terror suspects somewhere other than its military base in Cuba, where the court said legal rights apply.

The administration also must take extra precautions when it apprehends U.S. citizens and accuses them of being combatants. Those citizens are entitled to some rights like traditional criminal suspects.

Stevens' decision, and a separate one by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, make clear that they understand the hunt for terrorists after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. They also see a major role for courts to make sure the government does not go too far in infringing civil liberties.

EDITOR'S NOTE Gina Holland has covered the Supreme Court for The Associated Press for three years.

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Commentary:
I have to confess I'm surprised.

The Court that put Bush in power is forcing him to follow at least on of our laws. This is a major victory for the US. Had the Court ruled Bush can do anything he wants "during a time of war" our democracy would have continued to look like the sham it had quickly become. But now we have a short reprieve. What bothers me is that it took the Iraq torture scandal to get the Court to stop Bush and there was so little outrage over Bush's illegal acts. We had a few military judges and lawyers who were appalled and a very short list of other judges and lawyers but almost no one in the media cared that Bush was breaking the law.

Now that the Court has ruled Bush has acted illegally and unconstitutionally perhaps we can begin the long process of fixing what this tyrant has done. It will take us a generation to undo the damage but NOW is a good time to start.