Supreme Court Ruling on Guantanamo Detainees Strengthens Nation's Commitment to Rule of Law
Decision Defends Civil Liberties and Rule of Law
Last month the U.S. Supreme Court took an important step toward reestablishing America’s credibility as a nation committed to due process and the rule of law. In its Boumediene v. Bush decision of June 12, 2008, the Court upheld the long-standing principle of habeas corpus for detainees in Guantanamo. After more than six years, this decision gives Guantanamo detainees the ability to challenge their detention in federal court.
Habeas corpus – the right to challenge detention before a judge – is at the heart of the concept of the rule of law. It is not the jailor who should be in charge of judging a person or deciding upon his fate. Nor is it the executive system alone that has this power to deprive men of their liberty. They must be subject to meaningful federal judicial review.
Already, in the aftermath of the Boumediene decision, proposals are being made for new laws that would permit detention without criminal charges or trials and the creation of new national security courts.
These proposals run counter to the findings of a recent HRF report, In Pursuit of Justice, which concludes that “the justice system has capably handled [terrorism] cases, and continues to evolve to meet the challenge terrorism cases pose.” The Boumediene decision itself states that “questions [relating to protecting sources and intelligence-gathering] are within the expertise and competence of the District Court to address in the first instance.”
In the words of Harold Hongju Koh, Dean and Smith Professor of International Law at the Yale Law School and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, “[In Pursuit of Justice] proves that we need not reinvent the wheel: the federal criminal courts have been successfully adapted to handle the most important and challenging terrorism cases, and without sacrificing either national security or due process.”
In our view strong policies aimed a protecting national security can and should be consistent with strong policies protecting core civil liberties and human rights. These twin objectives go hand in hand.
Last month the U.S. Supreme Court took an important step toward reestablishing America’s credibility as a nation committed to due process and the rule of law. In its Boumediene v. Bush decision of June 12, 2008, the Court upheld the long-standing principle of habeas corpus for detainees in Guantanamo. After more than six years, this decision gives Guantanamo detainees the ability to challenge their detention in federal court.
Habeas corpus – the right to challenge detention before a judge – is at the heart of the concept of the rule of law. It is not the jailor who should be in charge of judging a person or deciding upon his fate. Nor is it the executive system alone that has this power to deprive men of their liberty. They must be subject to meaningful federal judicial review.
Already, in the aftermath of the Boumediene decision, proposals are being made for new laws that would permit detention without criminal charges or trials and the creation of new national security courts.
These proposals run counter to the findings of a recent HRF report, In Pursuit of Justice, which concludes that “the justice system has capably handled [terrorism] cases, and continues to evolve to meet the challenge terrorism cases pose.” The Boumediene decision itself states that “questions [relating to protecting sources and intelligence-gathering] are within the expertise and competence of the District Court to address in the first instance.”
In the words of Harold Hongju Koh, Dean and Smith Professor of International Law at the Yale Law School and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, “[In Pursuit of Justice] proves that we need not reinvent the wheel: the federal criminal courts have been successfully adapted to handle the most important and challenging terrorism cases, and without sacrificing either national security or due process.”
In our view strong policies aimed a protecting national security can and should be consistent with strong policies protecting core civil liberties and human rights. These twin objectives go hand in hand.
Share This Post
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
posted by HRF at
1:18 PM
1 Comments
