Supreme Court Hears Plea From Guantanamo

After six years of imprisonment with no rights, no charges and no access to a court, the prisoners at Guantanamo finally get to plead for justice before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Yesterday, the Court heard arguments from attorneys for two of the Guantanamo detainees and representatives of the United States government. The Bush administration had placed the prisoners in Guantanamo believing they would have no rights since they thought the location was not United States territory.

But that argument has already been shot down and the Justices weren't interested in reviving it. A previous court has said as long as Guantanamo is subject only to American rule and authority, it is American territory -- much like an American embassy in a foreign country is considered to be American soil.

The Court now must decide whether the detainees have a right to habeas corpus (the right to demand a court give them the legal and factual basis for their imprisonment). If it is held they do have this right, then the Court must decide if the military tribunal is a reasonable alternative to civilian courts.

The government says they should not have this right, and uses the example of German prisoners in World War II who had no rights. That may sound reasonable to some, but there are some major differences between the German prisoners and the Guantanamo detainees.

The German prisoners were POWs from a specific country we were at war with, and were repatriated when that war was over. The Guantanamo detainees are from multiple countries and are victims of a nebulous war against terrorism rather than a specific country -- a war that even Bush says may never be over.

They are accused of being terrorists rather than enemy soldiers, and as such, should be charged with a crime or released. Since they are believed to be criminals rather than enemy soldiers, they should have the right of habeas corpus. Denying them this right would mean the Bush administration could hold them forever without charges.

As for the military tribunal, it is nothing more than a kangaroo court without even the illusion of fairness. Those appearing before it are not entitled to an attorney and are not entitled to know all the evidence being used against them. Even worse, the tribunal is required to assume that whatever the government says is true and accurate whether they have evidence to prove it or not.

Since none of that would be considered fair in a court of law, why would we think it was fair in a military tribunal? That is not justice -- it is a military lynching.

If we can judge by the questions they were asking, it looks like the conservatives on the Court (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas) will side with the Bush administration, while the Court's liberals (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer) will come down on the side of justice. That leaves Justice Kennedy as the swing vote, and he asked few questions and gave no indication which way he was leaning.

It looks like America's reputation for fairness, justice and abiding by the rule of law rests on the shoulders of one man -- Justice Kennedy. I hope he is up to the task.