Jihad: Terrorists, Terror Rights & Terror Wrongs
U.S. Supreme Court: Boumediene v. George W. Bush, President of the United States
Habeas Corpus is Latin for “you have the body.” Prisoners in America who think they are being held unjustly can seek to get out of jail by filing a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Writ compels the authorities detaining the prisoner to show that he or she is being held legally. This is the life blood of our judicial process: just cause and due process. Absent such a showing, the person must be released. The Writ of Habeas Corpus has been a cornerstone of American justice, ensuring that no authorities are above the law or can freely abuse their significant power to imprison individuals. Historically, this right has been accorded all citizens and residents of the United States.
In Boumediene v. George W. Bush (decided June 12, 2008), the US Supreme Court took up the war on terrorism, specifically the issue of enemy combatants held at Guantanamo and whether they have the same right to Habeas Corpus as other Americans. In a 5 – 4 decision, the court ruled that enemy combatants, some of whom have been held captive for over six years, have such a right. The majority concluded that even enemy combatants cannot be held indefinitely in what may be a very long war on terrorism. In a blistering dissent, however, Chief Justice Roberts concluded that the majority was inserting itself into political questions traditionally left to elected officials to resolve, into the execution of American foreign policy, the responsibility for which has always been the province of the executive branch (the president) and was creating procedural rights for our enemies that could put our troops and national security in danger by granting detainees a possible right to demand evidence about the war effort.
These are unique times we live in: Either we are committing political suicide by granting powerful procedural rights to prisoners of war who were enemy combatants committed to the destruction of our way of life before their incarceration, or we are putting our lofty principals to action and trusting that the possible release of an Al Qaeda member or Jihadist is worth the price of extending civil procedural protections to all individuals detained by American authorities, even in time of war. It seems like the Supreme Court is just as divided as the rest of us on how to deal with terrorism in a free and democratic society.
Only the future will tell whether the collective wisdom of the majority decision has strengthened our country and the principals which have made it great, or whether its ruling is out of touch with the harsh realities of these times and has given those committed to our destruction another weapon to use against us. Stay tuned.
