Justice 5, Brutality 4

Amidst all the hooplah regarding constitutional rights in Guantanamo Bay, a Supreme Court ruling on Thursday, June 12 finally affirmed the detainees' right to habeas corpus. This 5 to 4 victory protects one of the most significant cornerstones of the constitution-the the right of anyone being held by the government to challenge his/her confinement before a judge. The past few years have seen numerous efforts by President Bush to deny numerous constitutional protections to, in his words, “unlawful enemy combatants." As a result, this Supreme Court victory proves to be a milestone not only for many Democrats and anti-torture advocates, but also for the United States, which has been at risk of hypocrisy for denying detainees crucial rights.

The author of "Justice 5, Brutality 4" raises an extremely valid point as he/she describes how it is "sobering to think that habeas hangs by a single vote in the Supreme Court of the United States." While the ruling is a major victory for civil liberties, it is frightening to think that these rights aren't necessarily as unalienable as we, as a nation, presume. More specifically, as he/she reiterates that habeas corpus is so vital to the Constitution that it has its own clause, he/she evokes a sense of immense astonishment. He/she mentions that it cannot be suspended except “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Clearly, that isn't an issue in Guantanamo, giving all the more reason to provide these detainees with one of their many basic rights.

Moreover, the author's arguments regarding the unconstitutionality of the treatment of the detainees are very plausible; he/she effectively emphasizes the fragility of these rights when he/she describes the ongoing battle between President Bush and the Supreme Court, as well as the internal battle within the Supreme Court. The fact that there was even a dispute regarding the basic rights of detainees demonstrates the necessity for re-evaluation; rights that are supposedly "unalienable" ought to apply to those held in Guantanamo Bay as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/opinion/13fri1.html