Moonsigns  |  Band Guide  |  Blogs  |  In Pictures  |  Adult
Boston  |  Portland  |  Providence
 
Letters  |  Media -- Dont Quote Me  |  News Features  |  Talking Politics  |  The Editorial Page  |  This Just In

Habeas-corpus rights restored to enemy combatants

One of our most important civil-liberty victories to date
By HARVEY SILVERGLATE  |  June 18, 2008

080620_gitmo_main

This past week, the Supreme Court rejected the Bush administration’s astonishing claim that it had the power to detain suspected “enemy combatants” at Guantánamo Bay — potentially for life — without fair proceedings or meaningful access to the federal courts. This moving reaffirmation of the so-called Great Writ of habeas corpus was probably the high court’s most important civil-liberties decision in my lifetime (and I was born in 1942). Habeas, put simply, forces jailers to produce in court legal justification for a prisoner’s incarceration. It is appropriately considered the most fundamental right of free people living under the rule of law. It is also the oldest, having been enshrined in the Magna Carta in 1215, when English barons first challenged the unchecked rule of the Crown.

We can all think of rights that deserve protection, such as privacy, property ownership, reproductive freedom, and marriage equality. But a leaner set of rights exists that functions to put Americans in a position from which they may fight to secure all the others. Free speech is perhaps the most familiar, and the right to vote is another. But the universal human right not to be held incommunicado in some government’s dungeon or gulag is too. Habeas might actually be the most important of all, as free speech and the electoral franchise are cruel jokes when attempted to be exercised from a dark, isolated cell.

Today, the prospect of a trip to the gulag might seem antiquated — but in fact repressive regimes in China, North Korea, and even Egypt have kept it a modern-day reality. The lust for unrestrained power is the exclusive province of neither the political left nor the right. We’d all do well to remember Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn’s monumental The Gulag Archipelago: 1918–1956, which depicted the gulags of the Soviet Union, and Jacobo Timerman’s Prisoner Without a Name, Cell Without a Number, which told of his 1977 disappearance into the torture chambers of the fascist Argentine junta. It is hardly beyond imagination that imprisonment without government accountability could come to American shores and affect not only aliens but even Americans.

Such concerns might seem a bit hysterical, but early in the “war on terror,” an American citizen, Jose Padilla, was arrested in Chicago, detained incommunicado in New York, and — in a shell game designed to evade judicial oversight — transferred to a military brig in South Carolina. As I explained in the Phoenix, the Supreme Court declined, on a technicality, to determine whether he was being held properly: his lawyers had filed their lawsuit in the wrong court because, by the time the judiciary considered the case, Padilla had been moved, in the middle of the night, to South Carolina. That case demonstrated that the Bush administration would go to great lengths to avoid judicial review of its treatment of suspected terrorists — even if they were citizens.

Since then, the president, later joined by Congress, ahs waged additional cat-and-mouse games against the Constitution and the judiciary. In 2004, the high court ruled in Rasul v. Bush that, because the United States had effectively exclusive control over Guantánamo, foreigners held there could test the legality of their confinement in US courts via habeas. It also decided, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, that, although the government could declare captives “enemy combatants” and detain them for the duration of hostilities, Americans in Guantánamo were entitled to a minimally fair process for challenging such determinations.

Despite the government’s limited win in Hamdi, the Supreme Court reminded the president that his oath to defend the Constitution required him to obey the rule of law — even in an age of terror. Then-justice Sandra Day O’Connor suggested in Hamdi some ways in which the high court was prepared to meet the government half way, if it otherwise played by the rules. It might, for instance, permit hearsay evidence and a limited “presumption in favor of the Government’s evidence” — wholly inadequate procedures by the standards of modern criminal law, but perhaps adequate, it said, for enemy-combatant hearings held in the heat of war, not always at convenient times or locales.

The president arrogantly rejected that olive-branch compromise, and Congress shamefully bought the president’s extreme position, enacting the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) in 2005 and the Military Commissions Act (MCA) in 2006. Those laws, respectively, effectively eviscerated fair procedures for reviewing the government’s “enemy combatant” designation, and replaced the normal habeas process that allowed federal trial courts to hold judicial-review hearings. Instead, that process was moved to a federal appeals court, which could do no more than determine whether the military had followed the rules set out by the president, not whether the hearings granted basic fairness.

The legislative and executive branches took the position that these laws’ provisions satisfied even the Supreme Court’s watered-down requirements of justice, but just in case they didn’t, the DTA and MCA limited detainees’ access to the courts, to the point where the prisoners were essentially stripped of their writs of habeas corpus and enemy-combatant hearings were sheltered from judicial review. This set up a monumental historic clash in which the Supreme Court was faced with the question of whether it would take on a megalomaniacal White House and a supine Congress in order to rescue that fundamental right.

1  |  2  |   next >
Related:
  Topics: News Features , Rasul Bush , George W. Bush , Judiciary ,  More more >
  • Share:
  • RSS feed Rss
  • Email this article to a friend Email
  • Print this article Print
Comments
Re: Habeas-corpus rights restored to enemy combatants
What nonsense!  Habeas-corpus rights were not restored to enemy combatants captured on foreign battlefields; you cannot restore what they never had.  Five justices created this mythically right out of whole cloth and bestowed it on a bunch of foreign terrorists.  Imagine if we applied this mythical right during WWII to hundreds of thousands of enemy combatants.  Personally, I have better things to do with my tax dollars than squander them on foreign terrorists who want to kill me.  They are not even legitimate POWs of a uniformed army.  It has always been the recognized right of nations to hold prisoners for the duration of the war, however long or short that may me.
By John_K on 06/20/2008 at 11:15:23
Re: Habeas-corpus rights restored to enemy combatants
//online.wsj.com/article/SB121400406620193453.html?mod=djemEditorialPage  

We'll Rue Having Judges on the Battlefield

By ANDREW MCBRIDE
June 21, 2008; Page A7

The Supreme Court's decision in Boumediene v. Bush is being hailed in many quarters as a great victory for civil rights and the rule of law. It is not. In fact, it is a watershed in judicial hubris, and in the continuing trend in our society to convert every form of decision making into a lawsuit.

By John_K on 06/21/2008 at 3:02:28
Re: Habeas-corpus rights restored to enemy combatants
Why so little discussion with supporting law regarding who is entitled to the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Are all persons? Citizens? Residents? British law exempted felonies and treason. US law exempts invasion. The distinction between enemy combatants and prisoners of war need to be defined as well. Prisoners of war are entitled to protection if they wear uniforms identifying them. How did that get extended to terrorists and enemy combatants? If Amnerican jurisprudence is applied to persons taken into custody for acts in foreign countries, why not also apply the laws of Kazakhstan too? How about some discussion on jurisdiction? This seems to blur the concept.    
By HILOMID on 06/21/2008 at 9:50:11
Re: Habeas-corpus rights restored to enemy combatants
Why so little discussion with supporting law regarding who is entitled to the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Are all persons? Citizens? Residents? British law exempted felonies and treason. US law exempts invasion. The distinction between enemy combatants and prisoners of war need to be defined as well. Prisoners of war are entitled to protection if they wear uniforms identifying them. How did that get extended to terrorists and enemy combatants? If Amnerican jurisprudence is applied to persons taken into custody for acts in foreign countries, why not also apply the laws of Kazakhstan too? How about some discussion on jurisdiction? This seems to blur the concept.
By HILOMID on 06/21/2008 at 9:51:00

election special
ARTICLES BY HARVEY SILVERGLATE
Share this entry with Delicious

 See all articles by: HARVEY SILVERGLATE

MOST POPULAR
RSS Feed of for the most popular articles
 Most Viewed   Most Emailed 



Thursday, October 02, 2008  |  Sign In  |  Register
 
thePhoenix.com:
Phoenix Media/Communications Group:
TODAY'S FEATURED ADVERTISERS
Copyright © 2008 The Phoenix Media/Communications Group