Denying habeas rights to Gitmo detainees undermines fundamental principles of democracy Commentary
Denying habeas rights to Gitmo detainees undermines fundamental principles of democracy
Edited by:

John Whitehead [President, Rutherford Institute and member, Constitution Project Liberty and Security Committee]: "As oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in Boumediene v. Bush concluded this afternoon, one could not help but think that it will prove to be one of the most important wartime cases in a post-9/11 America.

The case centers on Lakhdar Boumediene, who was labeled an "alien unlawful enemy combatant" by President Bush and has been detained at the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, along with several hundred other prisoners. Denied any habeas corpus rights, Boumediene has been imprisoned for the past five years without access to a court or meaningful communication with the outside world, including his family. And unless the Supreme Court intervenes, Boumediene and the other detainees could well remain in this state of limbo for the rest of their lives.

As a nation of free people, it is in our best interests to ensure that such a thing does not happen.

Americans have long adhered to the notion that a person is innocent until proven guilty. However, we cannot pick and choose when or to whom that principle should be applied. This is not to say that the detainees should be set free. Imprisonment is certainly appropriate and perhaps even necessary for those suspected of assisting terrorist organizations. However, imprisoning these individuals without providing them timely access to the courts goes against every principle we claim to stand for in the United States. After all, justice delayed is also justice denied.

Earlier this year the Rutherford Institute joined with the Constitution Project, Human Rights Watch, and Human Rights First in organizing a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Mr. Boumediene. This bipartisan group contended that "[s]eparation of powers principles compel the conclusion that the habeas-stripping provision of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 ("MCA") is an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional power. The MCA attempts to prevent the Judiciary from carrying out its most basic and essential function—interpreting and applying the rule of law through the writ of habeas corpus."

When we deny habeas corpus to the Guantanamo detainees, we risk more than just locking up individuals who might be innocent. We risk undermining the fundamental democratic principles that hold our government and its leaders in check."

Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.
THIS DAY @ LAW

Bank of England granted political independence

On May 6, 1997, British Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown announced that the Bank of England would be granted political independence for the first time in the three-hundred year history of the Bank. This policy was statutized in the subsequent Bank of England Act of 1998 gave the Bank independent control of British monetary policy effective June 1, 1998. Read the Bank of England Act of 1998.

Chinese Exclusion Act barred Chinese laborers from US

On May 6, 1882, President Chester A. Arthur signed the Chinese Exclusion Act, barring Chinese laborers from entering the United States and prohibiting courts from bestowing US citizenship on Chinese. Connecticut Senator Joseph Hawley spoke out against the Act in these words: Let the proposed statue be read 100 years hence, dug out of the dust of ages and forgotten as it will be except for a line of sneer by some historian, and ask the young man not well read in the history of this country what was the reason for excluding these men and he would not be able to find it in the law. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and its successors were abolished in 1943 at the insistence of President Franklin Roosevelt.