"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."
-United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 9
The Supreme Court ruled on June 12 that terrorism suspects including those held in the Guantanamo Bay military detention center had this constitutional right. I applaud their decision. A writ of habeas corpus is an important legal protection. What it means is that you have a right to be charged with a crime and know why you are being held. It is a very important legal protection. Without it the government could arrest whoever they wanted and then just never bring them to trial. In this way they could imprison innocent people and nothing could be done. Obviously this is not good.
The Bush administration thought that it would be a good idea to deny this legal protection to terrorism suspects. The reasoning was that they weren't U.S. citizens so constitutional protections shouldn't apply to them. The problem with this was that it meant the government could, theoretically, take anyone and put them in the prison indefinitely. If no one can challenge their imprisonment then there would be no way to find out if the prisons were wrongfully holding people. The government seemed to think that if they had to show why they were holding people then that would reveal national security information. This is a stupid argument! The courts could easily be closed to press. Regardless, why in the name of freedom and democracy would we deny anyone rights?
Some people may have noticed the condition on the clause quoted above. The right to a writ can be suspended "when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." Some may say "well the terrorists have invaded us and rebelled and so public safety requires this." This argument is highly flawed. While it is true that the right has been suspended before (for example in the civil war) this has only been when the rebellion and invasion has been so extreme that it became impossible to deal with the legal burden. In our case yes we have been attacked, but the legal system could still easily deal with the writs. granting the writs would not destroy public safety. It would take a significant war to cause us to have to ignore this right.
I'm glad the supreme court ruled in favor of us extending this right. The guilty will still be held accountable for if we have a just reason to hold the person our courts must merely show that and they will still be imprisoned. I am disappointed that the supreme court was split on this decision. The ruling was 5-4 with the conservative 4 dissenting. I normally like the conservatives on the court and especially chief justice Roberts but am saddened by their dissent in this case.
How can our country show the world the importance of our rights if we abandon them whenever we like?
The Supreme Court ruled on June 12 that terrorism suspects including those held in the Guantanamo Bay military detention center had this constitutional right. I applaud their decision. A writ of habeas corpus is an important legal protection. What it means is that you have a right to be charged with a crime and know why you are being held. It is a very important legal protection. Without it the government could arrest whoever they wanted and then just never bring them to trial. In this way they could imprison innocent people and nothing could be done. Obviously this is not good.
The Bush administration thought that it would be a good idea to deny this legal protection to terrorism suspects. The reasoning was that they weren't U.S. citizens so constitutional protections shouldn't apply to them. The problem with this was that it meant the government could, theoretically, take anyone and put them in the prison indefinitely. If no one can challenge their imprisonment then there would be no way to find out if the prisons were wrongfully holding people. The government seemed to think that if they had to show why they were holding people then that would reveal national security information. This is a stupid argument! The courts could easily be closed to press. Regardless, why in the name of freedom and democracy would we deny anyone rights?
Some people may have noticed the condition on the clause quoted above. The right to a writ can be suspended "when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." Some may say "well the terrorists have invaded us and rebelled and so public safety requires this." This argument is highly flawed. While it is true that the right has been suspended before (for example in the civil war) this has only been when the rebellion and invasion has been so extreme that it became impossible to deal with the legal burden. In our case yes we have been attacked, but the legal system could still easily deal with the writs. granting the writs would not destroy public safety. It would take a significant war to cause us to have to ignore this right.
I'm glad the supreme court ruled in favor of us extending this right. The guilty will still be held accountable for if we have a just reason to hold the person our courts must merely show that and they will still be imprisoned. I am disappointed that the supreme court was split on this decision. The ruling was 5-4 with the conservative 4 dissenting. I normally like the conservatives on the court and especially chief justice Roberts but am saddened by their dissent in this case.
How can our country show the world the importance of our rights if we abandon them whenever we like?
0 comments:
Post a Comment