Today the US Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in the case of Boumediene v. Bush. Justice Kennedy authored the opinion which held that the government may not hold prisoners indefinitely without charges at Guantanamo Bay. The right of Habeas Corpus applies even to “enemy combatants” who are held off-shore on a naval base.
In Rome, President Bush said, ”We’ll abide by the court’s decision. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with it.”
SCOTUS Blog writes that the Court, “ruled that Congress had not validly taken away habeas rights. If Congress wishes to suspend habeas, it must do so only as the Constitution allows — when the country faces rebellion or invasion.”
Perhaps I just don’t understand the “difficulties” of the situation, but if the government has any cause to hold these prisoners, why can’t they charge them with a crime? Why can’t we set a reasonable schedule to build a case and hold a trial?
The answer is that there is no reason why we can’t.
For a quick run-down of what happened: Click Here
For a post on concurrences and dissents: Click Here
1 response so far ↓
mbjesq // June 13, 2008 at 8:48 am
Indeed, why can’t we let the courts do what they were designed to do: decide matters of guilt and innocence?
My take is posted here.