Habeas Corpus
I was listening to some of the Supreme Court Guantanamo Hearings on the radio yesterday. The issue is whether the "enemy combatants" imprisoned on the Guantanamo base have a right to have a federal court review the justness of their imprisonment. It was fascinating hearing the justices' voices -- they all sound so profound and erudite, no matter what their position is.
I find the Justice Department's position and case appalling. They are basically claiming that since Guantanamo is not part of the US and the prisoners are not US citizens, US law does not apply to them. And since the government deems they do not qualify as prisoners of war, the Geneva Convention does not apply to them, either. It boils down to this: if the government claims (not proves -- simply claims) that you are an "enemy combatant" and ships you off to Guantanamo, you have no legal right whatsoever to request that they prove your "guilt". They can keep you locked up for however long they choose (it's been over two years for some of the prisoners) and there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it.
According to the US Constitution, a prisoner has the right to petition for a "writ of habeas corpus" which is a judicial mandate ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. Habeas corpus has been an integral part of english law for over 300 hundred years forced on the English Parliament in response to abusive detention of persons without legal authority. It became part of the US Constitution and guarantees one of our fundamental civil liberties and protections against an abusive government.
The government argues that since Guantanamo is not part of the US, the US Constitution does not apply. Considering that US law has been in effect on Guantanamo for over a century and that the prisoners don't have the option to appeal to Fidel to get their cases heard, think this argument is really questionable. But even if that were the case, indeterminable detainment without any form of recourse just feels fundamentally wrong. This type of law is the hallmark of tyrants and dictators (think Stalin, Pinochet, Saddam, etc.) -- the US should be better than that and people should not stand for it.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Habeas Corpus.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.nonplus.net/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/783
I really enjoy reading your Blog. You're sooo passionate and thoughtful in your writings. So, what should we do to right this wrong?
I don't know if you can directly right this wrong, but there are venues where you can express your disagreement with this.
Things like the Guantanamo prisoners are out of sight and mostly out of mind. Just talking about it makes people think about how our government is behaving.
I do believe that the majority of the Prisoners are "enemy combatants" and a hearing before a court would send them right back, and I'm perfectly OK with that. But put yourself into the shoes of those that are innocent (and I'm convinced some of the people at Guantanamo were simply at the wrong place at the wrong time when they were swept up) and the wrongness of their isolation becomes chillingly clear.