Guantánamo

A federal court last week handed the nation something it desperately needed—'œa victory for common sense in the war on terror,' said The Wall Street Journal in an editorial. In a 2'“1 decision, the D.C. Court of Appeals threw out claims brought on behalf of hundreds of suspected terrorists at Guantánamo Bay, ruling that as foreign nationals, they do not enjoy a habeas corpus right to challenge their detainment before a U.S. court. By upholding the constitutionality of the system of military commissions enacted by Congress last year, the court got two important things right. First, it deferred to the two elected branches of government on a sensitive matter of national security. It also upheld the principle that in times of war 'œit's not prudent to confer constitutional rights on enemy combatants.'

Let's hope the U.S. Supreme Court overturns this decision, said Erwin Chemerinsky in The Boston Globe. Otherwise, we'll be living in a nation that does not honor its own laws. The Constitution states that the right to challenge your imprisonment by the government can only be suspended 'œin cases of rebellion or invasion.' The court got around this by reasoning that the prisoners aren't covered by U.S. law, since Guantánamo 'œis under the sovereignty of Cuba'—as if Castro has any say over their fate. Even putting aside that preposterous stretch, the court mangled a basic principle: 'œNo one should be imprisoned, let alone for years, without meaningful due process.' This goes far beyond legal niceties, said Naomi Klein in The Nation. From the trial of alleged al Qaida operative Jose Padilla, we now know that suspected terrorists have been subjected to excruciating interrogation techniques. In fact, Padilla's lawyers said four years of psychological abuse—including long periods of intense isolation and bombardment with loud sounds and bright lights—have left their client a shattered man, unable to aid in his own defense. Padilla, at least, is getting his day in court, because he's a U.S. citizen. The so-called 'œenemy combatants' continue to languish in a black hole.

That's actually where they belong, said David Rivkin Jr. and Lee Casey, also in The Wall Street Journal. Civil libertarians insist the Bush administration violates legal norms when it seeks to maintain military custody over foreign prisoners. But in no previous war have combatants—whether regular soldiers, irregular guerillas, or terrorists—ever enjoyed the right to contest their detention in civilian courts. To invent such a right now would create chaos for our nation's struggle against people who want to kill us. That makes no sense, legal or otherwise.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up