In a severe rebuke of President George W. Bush's anti-terror policies, the United States Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the administration had overstepped its authority in setting up military tribunals to try suspected terrorists at the Guantanamo Bay  detention center.

The court upheld an inmate's challenge to the president's authority to create special tribunals to try suspected al-Qaida and Taliban supporters. Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who had worked as Osama bin Laden's driver and bodyguard, was demanding to be tried by a civilian court or court martial.

In its ruling the Supreme Court, which ruled 5-3 in favor of Hamdan and against the government, said that the tribunals contravened the Geneva Convention, as well as the US code of military justice. It added that there was "no sweeping mandate for the president to invoke military commissions whenever he deems them necessary."

The German press resoundingly welcomes the Supreme Court decision, and many papers comment on its implications for the democratic rule of law and separation of powers in the United States. However, papers are split on how the White House will react to the ruling.

The left-wing Die Tageszeitung is pessimistic about the prospects for the inmates of Guantamo itself, "the ruling changes nothing … the US security officials still decide who stays and who is released, without a court process." However, the paper welcomes the court's decision as the judges "make clear that even in the war on terror these kinds of spaces outside the law should not be allowed." The paper also praises the court's emphasis of the Geneva Convention, which the government had rejected when it came to "illegal combatants." However, the paper remains unconvinced that the court's ruling will be heeded. "If the government still tries to -- quite possibly successfully -- bypass the judicial rulings, then the basic understanding of the constitutional state in the US would suffer. Something that, despite every attempt, the Bush administration has so far failed to destroy."

The conservative daily Die Welt, writes that while the ruling does not spell the end for the camp, its inmates must now be treated according to the rules of the Geneva Convention. The paper comments that "the indirect recognition of al-Qaida as a war party is the most important part of the ruling … There will be voices who will interpret this as a political victory for Osama Bin Laden." But the paper points out this is not the concern of the Supreme Court, which is there to protect American law. However, its ruling does "not mean that Guantanamo will be closed with great fanfare." According to the paper, the judges essentially said that "if the military tribunals do not operate in secret, but in the presence of the accused, as in a court martial, then they could be legal." It adds: "The incarceration of the fighters is not illegal per se, but they must recognize the Geneva minimum standards and have transparent legal consequences according to US law."

The left-leaning Berliner Zeitung also emphasizes the significance of the judges' criticism of the US neglect of the Geneva Convention, "for which Bush and his people … have at best a sneer, and absolutely no respect. Now they will have to acknowledge that their own Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of such an international treaty." The paper argues that the ruling is also a vindication for the New York Times, which had been one of the sharpest critics of Guantanamo and the conditions there. Bush accused the paper of being unpatriotic, one of the "worst allegations that one can make against Americans." The paper argues that Bush deliberately used this kind of mentality to increase the authority of the state over its citizens. It writes: "The ruling has shown that the essential element of 'checks and balances,' an independent judiciary, functions in the US and it remains sufficiently unalarmed to make things difficult for the powerful man in the White House." It adds that while Bush may accuse the New York Times of being unpatriotic, "it has to show more respect to the Supreme Court. It is a patriotic court that also protects the US constitution from the president."

The Financial Times Deutschland does not think the ruling will force the closure of the camp, "but it brings it a step closer." The paper argues that to the US government the camp had "seemed like a particularly clever interim solution in this new kind of war on terror … But Guantanamo has long descended into a kind of black hole in the constitutional state." Nevertheless, the paper cautions against unrealistic optimism in light of the ruling. "Critics of Guantanamo have to realize that the problems that led to the camp's creation have not gone away. Fighters with POW status will not be allowed to be interrogated. Suspects who are handed over to local justice in Afghanistan or Yemen will not get any better treatment there." It concludes that "an exit from the Guatanamo system is urgently needed. But it won't be easy."

The financial daily Handelsblatt writes that the existence of the camp "causes serious concerns for every person who respects the law." Concerns that the US itself could embark on the path of lawlessness, "which the fight against terror is actually aimed at defeating." The paper argues that the decision by the Supreme Court against the Bush military tribunals is therefore good for the US: "It makes clear that in America it is not only the opinion of the president that counts." The paper then asks: "How long can the US government afford to sanction this kind of extrajudicial space, against the doubts of its own Supreme Court? How long can they keep going back to Sept 11 to justify operating on the edges of legality?"