U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Rights of Gitmo Prisoners

By Anastacia Mott Austin

In a ruling considered a blow to the Bush administration, the top court of the United States ruled this week that prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay have the same habeus corpus rights as any other prisoner.

The ruling strikes down a 2006 law passed by a Republican Senate that essentially removed basic legal rights from prisoners held the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, popularly known as "Gitmo."

Habeus corpus entitles any prisoner to hear the charges against him or her, and to challenge them in court. Some of the prisoners currently held at the base have been there for as long as six years without having heard what the charges are against them.

"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote, in the 70-page majority opinion. "Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law."

Kennedy has been the deciding vote on four decisions regarding terror suspects being held in U.S. custody.

For his part, George Bush expressed his disappointment at a press conference this week in Rome. "We'll abide by the Court's decision," said Bush, adding, "That doesn't mean I have to agree with it." Bush also added he would be examining the ruling to see if additional legislation needed to be passed.

The majority-minority lines were no surprise in this ruling, in a sharply divided Supreme Court. In favor of the ruling were the Court’s more liberal justices, including John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Stephen Breyer, along with Kennedy.

The dissenting minority included Justices Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito. Alito and Roberts were both appointed by President Bush.

Scalia wrote, in the dissenting opinion, that "Most tragically it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving in a civilian court ... that evidence supports the confinement of each and every prisoner."

Some might argue that terror suspects should not be "confined" without evidence supporting their imprisonment.

Amnesty International, the human-rights organization, applauded the ruling. Dalia Hashad, Human Rights Program Director of the group in the United States, told reporters, "The Supreme Court did the right thing. Everyone has the right to challenge why they're being thrown in prison, to hear the charges against them and to answer to that."

The Presidential candidates weighed in, of course. Barack Obama responded to the ruling by issuing a statement which read, in part that the decision was "…a rejection of the Bush administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo, yet another failed policy supported by John McCain."

McCain, for his part, told reporters he had "concerns" about the ruling, saying, "These are unlawful combatants. They are not American citizens. But it is a decision the Supreme Court has made. Now we need to move forward."

But Navy lieutenant commander Brian Mizer, a military attorney assigned to defend one of the terror suspects, said the ruling reinforces the fact that everyone under the jurisdiction must follow the law, whether it benefits them or not.

Said Mizer of the decision, "It's a victory for all Americans because it reinforces the principle that no person or agency is above the law."