The U.S. Supreme Court refused today to hear a legal challenge to the president’s war powers brought by Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen who was held until recently as an “enemy combatant” without basic legal rights. The court’s majority pointed out that since the Bush administration moved Padilla after 3 1/2 years from military to civilian custody, the appeal was now “hypothetical.” (Forget that the administration transferred Padilla precisely to avoid any such legal questioning of its wartime policies.) But by not taking up the case, the court has left unanswered key questions about the president’s wartime authority to circumvent or defy the Constitution. The administration will continue with dubious measures it insists are legal, and critics will continue to be able to do nothing about it. What, you may ask, is the purpose of a Supreme Court, if it cannot resolve these divisive wartime issues?

It’s important to remember this kind of legal uncertainty encourages abuse. We can see this at U.S.-run prison camps in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, where the administration’s failure to dictate clear policies encouraged soldiers to make their own conclusions about what treatment was “humane” and what was not — with tragic results.

Victor Tan Chen Victor Tan Chen is In The Fray's editor in chief and the author of Cut Loose: Jobless and Hopeless in an Unfair Economy. Site: victortanchen.com | Facebook | Twitter: @victortanchen