The US Supreme Court, Habeas Corpus, And Guantanamo
June 20, 2008, Matthew Good The reaction by many US conservatives, including Republican Presidential hopeful John McCain, to the recent US Supreme Court decision to grant detainees held at Guantanamo the right of Habeas Corpus has been, dare I say, rather un-American. In fact, McCain has even gone so far as to call the decision the worst in the history of the Supreme Court. One wonders if Mr. McCain, and those who share his view, have read Thomas Paine’s Rights Of Man?
Of those detained at Guantanamo, how many are innocent? Some officials have claimed the number could be in the hundreds – all of them held without official charge and without legal recourse or access to council under the auspices of either US or International law. Basically – they have absolutely no rights. They can be disappeared, transferred to undisclosed locations, and can be made to endure whatever their captors decide is “acceptable” given the circumstances.
Some of you might view the facility at Guantanamo as essential with regards to US national security. Some of you might agree that granting detainees the right to Habeas Corpus is a disastrous decision because it’s gifting them rights that they don’t deserve given the now familiar mantra that the War On Terror is a “new kind of war” that requires the employment of a strong and determined mindset to fight. Unfortunately, when it comes to the rule of law, you can’t have it both ways. You cannot claim to be a global champion of it while completely denying due process to a select few. Because if that precedent can be established and its hypocrisy not confronted, then the question ultimately has to be asked – where does it end?
True democratic principles do not conform to the whims of a Presidential administration, nor those that support its flagrant abuse of the rule of law. They demand the existence of impartiality, of legal representation, and the right to seek relief from unlawful imprisonment. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus three times. The United States Constitution specifies that it can only be suspended “…when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.”. Of course, many disagreed with the legality of Lincoln’s right to impose the suspension, but the circumstances were, of course, much different than those now faced, though it is still an issue that is argued over to this very day.
Legally, can those that have been held by the United States in legal limbo for the last seven years be viewed as invaders? Did 9/11 technically constitute a military invasion of the United States? Obviously they cannot be classified as individuals in revolt as they are not US citizens. Therefore, according to the Constitution, they have to be labeled as members of an invading force for Habeas Corpus to be suspended. The problem, of course, is that the majority of them were apprehended in foreign countries, and therefore not a part of any invasion force. In that case, International Law should take precedent, not to mention articles of the Geneva Conventions, but the protections of both have also been denied them.
The Red Cross was granted access to the facility at Guantanamo, had the courage to attack its conditions and hypocrisy, and have since been denied access to it. The United Nations followed suit, with the UNHRC coming to similar conclusions. Of course, neither had any impact on US policy.
So, after seven years in legal limbo, the US Supreme Court has granted those being held at Guantanamo the right of Habeas Corpus, which, in layman’s terms, means that detainees can individually take their cases to US courts and contest unlawful imprisonment. But the Supreme Court’s decision is not without its caveats. The ruling, in part, reads…
“United States courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay.”
Thus, while detainees have been granted the possibility of redress, US courts possess the right to consider challenges to the legality of their detention. That stipulation is, in truth, a loophole that provides US courts, on a case by case basis, the right to consider whether the auspices of Habeas Corpus will be granted. One very important of the ruling though is that it does provide the chance for a precedent to be set with regards to finally clarifying the legal status of detainees.
This little symbol lets you @ another comment
Habeas Corpus. Show me the body (in this case the “body” of the crime) so that I can respond and defend myself.
Sounds simple enough.
What else is simple enough is the Bush administration’s belief that the rule of law, that the Constitution, that various court rulings, just don’t apply to them. They deny basic rights and jail people without trial for years.
Sounds just like Cuba
or China or North Korea or Burma or…..
I opened a new window in Wikipedia to look up Habeas Corpus…..and then after further reading see you supplied the definition :P hahaha
This is quite disturbing….
Everyone deserves the right to a fair trial. Sigh.
I agree with Sebrina. Everyone deserves the right to a fair trial. For A time I really liked John McCain, though I think that he is no longer the man he used to be.
Interesting.
I wonder though, what’s the point of having such a decision in place, in order to redress their detainment, if they aren’t being held ‘legally’ anyway?
I don’t expect any answers, I suppose it’s more of a philisophical question.
I was under the impression that John McCain was an advocate against GITMO. Given his past experiences in POW camps you would think one would have to be. In any event, I’m not surprised with his reaction – the independent “maverick” attitude of John McCain has been quelled; I suppose as a republican running for office this election it’s necessary to try to appease every voting block your party consists of.
Hard to believe McCain was once held against his will.
[quote comment="56156"]I agree with Sebrina. Everyone deserves the right to a fair trial. For A time I really liked John McCain, though I think that he is no longer the man he used to be.[/quote]
:)
I agree with this perspective from an anonymous blogger on another site:
“The problem that Bush, McCain and others have with giving some legal rights to detainees is entirely political, not legal.
Open court proceedings on detainees’ status risk showing that a substantial portion of the detainees are not terrorists at all and they have been held for no other reason than as a PR body count to show that Bush’s war on terror is effective. Even for those detainees who can be shown to be members of al Qaeda, having their stories revealed in court will probably show that most of them are mere foot soldiers and further cast doubt on the effectiveness of Bush’s and McCain’s policy.
Further, court proceedings may well show that the best way to fight terrorism is by using relatively low-cost, low-profile intelligence and law enforcement techniques rather than extremely expensive, very high-profile military operations. This would also undercut the Bush and McCain policy.
Open court proceedings on these guys is likely to alter the American’s public image of al Qaeda and other terrorists organizations. At this point, most Americans perceive the terrorists as super-evil, super-devious, super-capable beings. Seeing them in person and hearing their stories is likely to reveal them to be much less scary and much less of a threat to US security. That would also hurt Bush and McCain politically.”
A court ruling is all fine and dandy but…
How are the prisoners in Guantanamo going to receive this notification?
Would they even understand, after being tortured/assaulted?
What about the power that the prison employees may have over them due to this torture. Would any of them jump at the opportunity even if they were deeply destroyed and afraid they will get ‘punished’ for attempting such a thing?
And then what happens when their appeal is denied and they get sent right back to Guantanamo, only to be tortured more than previously?
A court ruling is fine, but I think there should be more.
I guess its a step in the right direction.
I had a dream the other nights that there was a court for politicians where they could be questioned and cross-examined and made to tell the truth about what they believed in their hearts to be right instead of what they believed they needed to say for political expediency. How different the world would be.
I’ve been unable to get official answers to a few questions…..Such as- Who are these guys? Are they soldiers? POW’s? Criminals? And who decides? The President? The Courts? Congress?
Was the attack on 9/11 an act of War? Terrorism? Criminal activity?
Did the responsibilty for the action end with deaths of the perps?
If Obama gets elected and doesn’t withdraw troops the first day, should he be impeached for lying to the American people?
Should McCain be impeached if he DOES withdraw troops? That could be construed as lying.
This is a Giant Sized Can of Unidentifiable Shit. I wonder if Osama would do it again? There’s plenty of blood on his hands. He probably shouldn’t have authorized 9/11. I can’t see what it accomplished. He’ll be dead before long. The hit is already planned. The escape is the tricky part. When Osama falls, it’ll be quick .
His opposition to Haebius Corpus could even be said to be unMcCain-like, if you believe his line about opposing torture (even though he has authorized it in the Senate). His supposed opposition to torture is a principled one based on his experience as a POW in Vietnam. But he’s outwardly fine with no Haebius Corpus? Just seems a little odd to me.
Some ex detainees that had been released in the past stated that most of the imprisoned were simple people. Teachers, bakers or bricklayers that had been arrested randomly right off the streets in afghanistan in the first days of the military intervention. Their great mistake: being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
It’s hard to believe that some of them have been held captive for nearly 7 years now. That’s just a crime against humanity. But where there’s no complainant (which of the countries that have a say in the world would submit that case to international court of justice?) there will no judgement and thus no change be made. Sad as it is.
This entire situation has been screwed up because everything that has happened since 9/11 has been construed as a “war on terror.” The problem is, it’s not a “war” in the sense of the world that has always been accepted. There is not a formal “enemy,” in terms of country/countries of origin. It’s not being “waged” in a set location, but rather worldwide. And it is a “war” that, by its very nature, will have no end (I mean, do you think it will be over even if/when Osama is killed/captured?). Terrorism will never disappear.
At some point, somebody has to stand up and say, “You know what? This is not a war in the sense for which these laws were created. You cannot use the laws for situations that do not apply.” The problem is, whoever actually does it is absolutely risking their political career (and perhaps their life), because anybody who goes against this warped view of the war on terror is considered to be anti-American/terrorist-emboldening/puppy-dog-kicking.
Don’t worry guys, the world will forget about Guantanamo just like most forget Camp Douglas(it gives Chicago as if there is another one with that name)
This is from the Wikipedia article on the matter, I know the Ameican CIvil War was a different situation but the point isn’t just about legal, or not legal, war or peace, it is about something Inhumane, that because we did it, we are right to forget it. To the victor goes the spoils of war and the favor of the corruption of history?
Summary
In 1861, a tract of land at 60th Street and Cottage Grove Avenue in Chicago was provided by the estate of Stephen A. Douglas for a Union Army training post. The first Confederate prisoners of war—more than 7,000 from the capture of Fort Donelson in Tennessee—arrived in February, 1862. Eventually, over 26,000 Confederate soldiers passed through the prison camp, which eventually came to be known as the North’s “Andersonville” for its inhumane conditions.
DEATHS
It is estimated that from 1862–1865, more than 6,000 Confederate prisoners died from disease, starvation, and the bitter cold winters (although as many as 1,500 were reported as “unaccounted” for). The largest number of prisoners held at any one time was 12,000 in December 1864. Accounts vary as to precise numbers. According to 80 Acres of Hell, a television documentary produced by the A&E Network and the The History Channel, the reason for the uncertainty is that many records were intentionally destroyed after the war. The documentary also alleges that, for a period of time, the camp contracted with an unscrupulous undertaker who sold some of the bodies of Confederate prisoners to medical schools and had the rest buried in shallow graves without coffins. Some were even dumped in Lake Michigan only to wash up on its shores. Many, however, were initially buried in unmarked pauper’s graves in Chicago’s City Cemetery (located on the site of today’s Lincoln Park), but in 1867 were reinterred at what is now known as Confederate Mound in Oak Woods Cemetery (5 miles south of the former Camp Douglas).
Nobody was ever held accountable for the conditions and actions at Camp Douglas. *Don’t know if I need HTML or BB CODE to bold*
Conditions
Henry Whitney Bellows, president of the U.S. Sanitary Commission, wrote to Colonel Hoffman his superior after visiting the camp: “Sir, the amount of standing water, unpoliced grounds, of foul sinks, of unventilated and crowded barracks, of general disorder, of soil reeking miasmatic accretions, of rotten bones and emptying of camp kettles, is enough to drive a sanitarian to despair. I hope that no thought will be entertained of mending matters. The absolute abandonment of the spot seems to be the only judicious course, I do not believe that any amount of drainage would purge that soil loaded with accumulated filth or those barracks fetid with two stories of vermin and animal exhalations. Nothing but fire can cleanse them.”[citation needed]
According to the History Channel documentary, the commander before Sweet imposed the following harsh conditions: 3oz daily meat portions, sitting naked in the winter, crippling sittings on a sawhorse device, and beating or shooting of those trying to circumvent food rations — even, for example, to punish the eating of snow. [1]
The documentary details Sweet’s command of Camp Douglas by saying Colonel B.J. Sweet used reduced food rations — removing vegetables and decreasing the 3oz daily meat portions — to control the prison population and reduce escape attempt numbers. The reduced rations increased instances of diseases such as scurvy and helped to increase mortality rates. Sweet rewarded guards for shooting prisoners, restricted prisoner movement, and enforced nightly quiet hours. Acting on rumors of a pre-election Camp Douglas Conspiracy to break prisoners free, Sweet extends martial law from the blocks surrounding Camp Douglas to the city of Chicago and arrests about a hundred citizens suspected of treason.
——-
I just think it an awful thought that we tend to forget teh actions that we have done, now war is brutal, and those were times where some things were considered to be acceptable, but we don’t seem to forget Andersonville as if the people whom died in Douglas were less of value to note in our history books.
Not long from now, in the scape of things, we will forget Guantanamo, we might remember that a presidential candidate(even president) went through years of horrific treatment by others hands,but we will not be taught this, and it will shift towards the back of the historical minds. We are already starting to forget our actions in WWII, both good and bad, as it seems.(ALthough some Japanese-Americans probably won’t)
You mentioned Thomas Pain, well there was another mind involved with the founding fo my country, and he had a famed quote one that we should not only remember as to what it says, but to just what it means. If we don’t as a country, and self -alleged champions of freedom, equality, and justice for all, well we just have committed national suicide.
“Give Me Liberty or give me death” -Patrick Henry