Court TV Host: In a major defeat for the Bush administration, the Supreme Court has struck down the Guantanamo military tribunals. Debate the meaning and impact of this landmark decision with two lawyers who filed amicus briefs on opposing sides of the case: Richard Samp of the Washington Legal Foundation, supporting the president's authority to create military tribunals; and Jonathan Hafetz, of New York University's Brennan Center for Justice, opposing the tribunals.

Court TV Host: If you'd like to read the court's decision, you can go to http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf

Court TV Host: And if you'd like to take a look at the debate that Richard Samp and Jonathan Hafetz had about the case on the day it was argued before the court, just look at http://www.courttv.com/talk/chat_transcripts/2006/0328hamdan-debate.html

Court TV Host: Gentlemen, it's a pleasure to have you both back here today.

Question from JERRY: Does this decision mean that the detainees either have to be given a trial or let go? Also, what if Bush refuses to abide by the Court's decision?

Richard Samp: As both sides agree, the decision today has nothing to do with the power of the government to hold enemy combatants for the duration of hostilities. That issue is to be decided in a case now pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals in the D.C. Circuit.

Jonathan Hafetz: The decision holds that the ad hoc military commissions unilaterally established by President Bush, without congressional approval, and outside existing and established legal frameworks are unlawful. The thrust of the decision is that if the President is going to hold or try detainees, he must do so in accordance with the laws and Constitution of the United States.

Richard Samp: The decision doesn't order the President to do anything. He is simply ordered not to hold war crimes trials until procedures are changed. So the President is likely to be content to do nothing for a while and continue to hold the defendants in detention. I suspect that the President will ask Congress to pass a law allowing him to conduct trials along the lines of the rules that were struck down today. If not, he is free to proceed with tribunals that mimic procedures used in military courts martial.

Question from tribe: I think people jumped on this ruling not understanding the basic point of it has nothing to do with the majority of the detainees.

Richard Samp: The case decided important issues; but you are correct, the case has nothing to do with the right to detain people at Guantanamo for the duration of hostilities.

Jonathan Hafetz: That is incorrect. First, it rejected the government's arguments that the Detainee Treatment Act stripped the court of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions; and second, it demonstrates that executive power must be limited by the Constitution and laws of the U.S. , including international treaties.

Richard Samp: The decision will have one impact on pending detention cases: the court ruled that the law (passed by Congress last December) that strips the courts of jurisdiction to hear detainee cases from Guantanamo, will not apply retroactively to pending cases.

Jonathan Hafetz: I think its impact will be broader in that it reaffirms that, even a state of war is not a blank check for the President.

Richard Samp: The executive power is, of course, limited by the laws of the United States; but as the dissenters powerfully pointed out, the majority essentially made up the law. These were not laws that Congress ever intended.

Jonathan Hafetz: Congress has clearly limited the President's power through the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as five Justices, including Justice Kennedy, decided.

Richard Samp: The decision also is not based on any constitutional provisions. Because it is totally based on statutes, Congress is free to overrule the Court if it so chooses.

Question from lorene: It was my understanding that the ruling upheld the Geneva Convention in its entirety in relation to Guantanamo?

Jonathan Hafetz: The Court held that the Geneva Conventions apply even to al Qaeda and that the military commissions had to adhere to the laws of war, of which the Geneva Conventions are a part.

Richard Samp: The decision did not hold that the Geneva Conventions are judicially enforceable. What the court held was that if the government wants to prosecute someone, the UMCJ requires it to do so in accordance with the law of war, which includes the Geneva Conventions. But that doesn't mean that a detainee has any right to go into court on his own and claim that his Geneva Convention rights have been violated. The Court held that Common Article 3 of the 1949 Conventions held that the tribunal must be a regularly constituted tribunal, which the court took to mean a tribunal constituted in accord with the law of the host country (in this case the U.S.). So, the Court's decision that Common Article 3 had been violated was simply another way of saying that the tribunal rules don't accord with the UMCJ, which is a federal statute that Congress can change.

Jonathan Hafetz: Common Article 3 reflects the most fundamental protections under international humanitarian law (or the law of war) and the U.S. would derogate from its legal obligations if it sought to establish again tribunals inconsistent with its requirements, including the right to be present and to confront one's accusers.

Richard Samp: The court said nothing about Common Article 3 requiring the right to be present and confront one's accusers.

Question from lorene: Mr. Samp, did the Court hold that the Geneva Convention is "not" judicially enforceable?

Richard Samp: The court did not rule that the Geneva Conventions are not judicially enforceable; rather, it declined to address the question. That question will have to be addressed in connection with the pending Guantanamo detention cases.

Question from greenacres: So what happens to the detainees now? What can their lawyers do? What will Congress do?

Richard Samp: The detainees are proceeding with litigation in the DC Circuit. Also, they are all entitled to review hearings, at which they can argue their innocence. Also, their cases are each reviewed annually, to determine whether (even assuming they were rightly categorized as enemy combatants) they no longer present a danger and thus can be released. Many people have been released in connection with both types of hearings.

Jonathan Hafetz: The Court's opinion is an indictment of the President's practice of trying and detaining individuals labeled as "enemy combatants" outside established legal frameworks. While the opinion does not directly address the fate of the detainees, it supports the principle that they should be tried and charged in civilian courts or in military proceedings pursuant to courts-martial.

Richard Samp: I disagree. Nothing in the court's opinion undercuts the traditional rule that enemy combatants can be detained without hearing for the duration of hostilities.

Jonathan Hafetz: Like the military commissions, the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) violates the Geneva Convention and U.S. military law. If the President cannot try individuals outside those legal rules, he cannot so detain them either.

Richard Samp: The detainees are entitled to make those arguments, but nothing in the court's decision today so holds.

Question from closereader: Clarence Thomas wrote that the decision will make it harder for us to prevent terrorism - how did the majority feel about that, and how will that play out politically?

Richard Samp: Trying war criminals for their crimes has long been an accepted part of military procedures -- so evidently, military leaders feel that it is important part of fighting a war. I am not an expert on the issue, but I am willing to defer to the judgments of military leaders.

Jonathan Hafetz: The opinion of the Court and concurring opinions squarely reject that argument. Rather, they affirm that the Nation is safest when all three branches participate in fundamental decisions regarding the trial and detention of individuals in U.S. custody. It is precisely Justice Thomas's endorsement of unchecked executive power that allows that power to be used unwisely.

Richard Samp: The majority was unwilling to show any deference.

Jonathan Hafetz: While trying war criminals for crimes has long been part of established military procedures, the sweeping use of military commissions by the Bush administration has not. Rather, it is beyond all history and precedent.

Richard Samp: I am unaware of Justice Stevens ever having gone through any anti-terrorist training. The rules established by President Bush are virtually identical to the rules established by President Roosevelt during WWII.

Jonathan Hafetz: It is the duty of the Court to apply the law. It is further important to note the number of prominent military and intelligence figures who have rejected the Bush administration's detention and trial policy at Guantanamo.

Richard Samp: I agree that we need to ensure that alleged war criminals receive a fair trial. But I saw nothing unfair about the tribunal procedures established by the military -- and certainly nothing to the contrary appears in the UMCJ.

Court TV Host: Justice Thomas, for the first time in 15 years, read his dissent from the bench - does this say anything about the current relations of the Justices on the new court?

Jonathan Hafetz: I think it demonstrates just how isolated Justice Thomas is on these issues. Remember also he was the lone Justice who accepted the administration's view two years ago in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

Richard Samp: The fact that the dissenters read their dissents from the bench shows just how divided the court is on national security issues. However, everything I have read suggests that the members of the Court have gotten along well for years, and Justice Roberts has a reputation of having increased the collegiality. Justice Thomas was speaking on behalf of three justices, and clearly had the support of a fourth (Roberts).

Question from googlier897: As a decision regarding separation of powers, and the limits of judicial review, will Hamdan have a large impact?

Jonathan Hafetz: I think its impact on separation of powers will be significant, as it reaffirms that both the Court and Congress are coordinate branches of government.

Richard Samp: The decision will have a significant impact if lower courts follow the Supreme Court's lead in showing no deference to the Executive on military affairs. The next thing we may see are challenges to specific military actions (e.g., the war in Iraq).

Court TV Host: Any closing thoughts?

Richard Samp: A divided Supreme Court ruled against the president. But this should not be deemed a "rebuke" in the sense that the President did anything wrong. He has the support of 4/9 of the Court, Congress (which passed the DTA last Dec.) and the American people.

Jonathan Hafetz: For more than four years, the President has held individuals at Guantanamo in defiance of the statutes, Constitution, and treaties of the United States. Like Rasul v. Bush and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld two years ago, the Court has rejected such sweeping use of executive power.

Richard Samp: The decision goes a long way in demonstrating why we need to avoid the appointment of activist justices to the Supreme Court.

Jonathan Hafetz: As the Court indicated, he does not have the support of Congress, since, as the Court concluded, Congress did not intend to strip the Courts of their power to hear the habeas petitions of Guantanamo detainees.

Richard Samp: The track record of the Bush Administration has actually been pretty good in the courts. In particular, it won the Padilla case, and now even liberals usually admit that Hamdi was an Administration victory. Congress clearly intended to deny jurisdiction in this case. It took contorted reasoning from the court to say otherwise.

Jonathan Hafetz: The Court decided Padilla on a technical issue and, when it came back again, the government charged Padilla criminally because it feared it would lose when the Court reached the merits. Eight Justices rebuked the government's arguments in Hamdi.

Court TV Host: Thank you both for joining us online today. Please come back soon.