I just wanted to get people's feelings about the recent US Supreme Court decision that habeas corpus rights should not be denied to prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.

On the one hand, it would be nice to restore some decorum to the US. On the other hand, it is providing Constitutional rights to people that are not US citizens.

But I'm not asking for your thoughts about that.

What I want to know is how people think that this will affect US security. (This is something of a loaded question, and I'm curious how it will be responded to.) If you would, I'd like you to respond without reading other responses first.

I think it's a good thing in general. I don't think it will weaken US Security.

On a tangential note: It was a 5 to 4 decision, meaning that four of our supreme court justices think it's OK to take away the right to defend oneself against imprisonment. So when voting for US presidents, please consider carefully who your candidate is intending to appoint to our supreme court.

Am I right in thinking that people on US soil normal get afforded the rights of the US constitution (or at least some of them, obviously they can still be deported) ?

It's a little unclear. The Constitution itself does specifically list a number of things as being for citizens and other things for "people" or some other vague noun. (This may have been intentional or may not have. This is a good example of one of the biggest political differences between judges.) Case law (that is, precedent from legal cases) holds that foreigners on US soil are afforded at least some protections (see Yick Wo v. Hopkins), but case law is mutable. As it stands today, yes, they would tend to be afforded protections.

Given that the US government has said that the prisoners at Guantanamo were fighting the US, but that they can't have their rights under the Geneva convention I am very pleased that the Supreme Court has decided that they should have at least some of the rights they would have if they had been arrested in the US.

We have no guarantee that everyone in Guantanamo is guilty of whatever the US military think they are guilty of. We have a shameful precedent here in the UK of locking young men up for most of their adult life for terrorist acts they didn't commit.

Given this it is vital that the residents of Guantanamo are given some decent legal rights. The whole stupid Guantanamo situation has done immense harm to the the already battered reputation of the US in the rest of the world. I'm afraid it makes the US with its claim of a love of freedom seem hugely hypocritical.

It goes without saying that I don't blame every US citizen for all of this, but I don't think everyone else in the world is necessarily that generous.

I'm glad to see the decision. To me, it's part of the basic set of rights mankind should have and really proves as a civilization we can avoid crushing the rights of the many due to the acts of a few. It also sets a good example to follow our own rules even when in times of great need, as it proves the strength of those rules.

I count myself lucky to be born into the life I have, and am thankful that many generations of people before me have laid the foundations for my better life. To go backwards on a set of fundamental rights will affect and kill way more people then died in one major, but isolated event of terrorism.

(reading up now on other responses)

I have to agree with Andy that this helps to avoid appearing quite so hypocritical to the rest of the world. We have a long way to go on that path, but this is a good step. It's also giving me some faith back that our system does work, albeit a bit slower then it should have. 7 years might not seem that long when looking at history, but it's a sizable piece of anyones life to not have such rights.

Any time such as this, where there's a small triumph of human rights over paranoia and irrational fear of foreigners, I'm reminded of the many times Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Gonzales, et. al. have used some version of the phrase "working with our hands tied behind our back" in reference to how we deal with actual terrorists.

Whether it's waterboarding, the abuses at Abu Gharib, or offering simple Habeas protection to POWs (sorry, "enemy combatants") the justification for treating foreigners as subhuman is that they would do the same to us, and we need to fight on equal footing against the them. As if the terrorists' willingness to commit atrocities gives them the upper hand against a superpower of our magnitude!

Some of this is undoubtedly paranoid reaction to 9/11, which was a one in a million "perfect storm" that I sincerely doubt could ever be replicated. When you live in a free society there is always the possibility of someone taking advantage of those freedoms to cause calamity and destruction, but we're strong enough a country to be both safe and free.

I consider this a very small victory for justice in America, and hope it's the beginning of a long winning streak as we try to close the door on the Bush era.

I really can't see how it will weaken US security. I just hope the trials don’t end up with O.J. quality prosecuting attorneys and juries.

Did anyone ever list specific justifications or instances where suspending habeus corpus somehow increases national security?

I believe that organizations like Al Quaeda operate completely indifferently toward our laws. What our Supreme Court rules for how we manage a legal process that they don't recognize as legitimate will have absolutely no affect on their operations.

The question is whether we want to grant the state the right to detain people without proving they have authority to do so. In our society, that authority comes from the rule of law and by the people selectively granting that authority. Denying *anyone* the right to protection from arbitrary arrest is a threat to all of our security (liberty), though not from outside forces. We do not want to have a society where we exchange rule of law for a police state that is allowed to arrest and confine people without any legal restraint. If the state is *legitimately* detaining someone, then proving they have the legal authority to do so should not be difficult. Habeas corpus merely says that they must -- that the authorities are ultimately answerable to the People. In that sense, the prisoners at Guantanamo are not they only ones being denied their rights; we all are. If we are a government of the people, we (through representation) must demand that those in whom we trust the use of force justify their use of it.

The only reason to deny someone habeas corpus is because you want to detain them illegally and without evidence of wrong doing. That's scary stuff.

The real threat to our security will ultimately not be Al Quaeda or any other outside actors. It will be domestic totalitarianism. Before you say it will never go that far, take a close look at the Patriot Act and it's extensions.

Now I'll go read the other responses...

Jim

I was wondering that as well.

Did anyone ever list specific instances (outside of Jack Bauer's activities on "24") where torturing prisoners led to information that prevented the loss of life?

Did anyone ever list specific instances where allowing wiretaps without warrants led to arrests which prevented loss of American lives in a foiled terrorist plot?

Of course not. It's all FUD tactics designed to increase government power and protect people at the highest levels of the administration who've abused that power.

While you're preaching to the choir in terms of the actual effects, I find it difficult to believe that *no* written justification was given at the time. Surely somehwere someone had to put down on paper what their reasons were?

I think it was also one of those issues where “they” said - "Lock everyone up and keep them locked up so we can't be accused of letting out a terrorist on our watch."

Recent newspaper reports are suggesting that most people in Guantanamo aren't guilty of whatever the US military thinks they're guilty of.

Afte reading this, are you still giving "them" the benefit of the doubt?




Sing it with me folks...

I'm proud to be an American... where at least I know I'm free...