Basic human rights upheld in ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court's narrow 5-4 ruling last week upholding the concept of habeas corpus was, of course, specifically welcome news for the hundreds who have been held without being charged at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.

But, in the long run, its impact will have more far-reaching consequences for the rule of law in our nation and for the way our own citizens may be treated if similar circumstances occur elsewhere in the world.

The fact of the matter is that we want U.S. citizens to be treated fairly and humanely if they are incarcerated by foreign governments. Isn't it simple justice for us to extend the same principle to others? That has been one of our biggest concerns with the concept underlying the Guantanamo prison -- that other countries would use it as a pretext in the future to treat our own soldiers or private citizens in a similar manner.

"The high court has, in a nutshell, allowed prisoners in Guantanamo access to civilian courts," writes columnist Pat Lynch in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. "It means they cannot simply be warehoused until the government decides it might be convenient to charge them with something. It is the most fundamental of our human rights. The writ of habeas corpus is the first and greatest check against tyranny."

David Souter, one of the justices writing in the majority, specifically pointed to the extreme length of time many have been held without charges -- some up to six years. "Hence the hollow ring when the dissenters suggest that the court is somehow precipitating the judiciary into reviewing claims that the military…could handle with some reasonable period of time," he writes.

Justice Antonin Scalia decided to pursue his now-familiar over-the-top route in decrying the opinion of the majority.

He said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists" and the decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

In short, he wants to try to put the blood of Americans on the hands of those who voted to uphold the time-honored concept of habeas corpus. It is a tone more reminiscent of radio talk shows than a serious argument by a Supreme Court justice.

Of course, this is the same justice who ruled there should be no vote recount in Florida in 2000 because it might cast doubt on the political legitimacy of the election of George Bush. That ruling came from a justice who invariably proclaims the importance of states' rights except in that case, in which he denied Florida (and its state supreme court) its right to recount the votes of its own citizens.

"It would always be one heckuva lot easier to just lock up the bad guys and throw away the key," Lynch writes about the Scalia concept of justice. "If we observe the formalities of due process, things just get bogged down and innocent people might get hurt. Why have trials at all? Of course, there are people who seem to believe exactly that, so let's just move along before somebody starts getting crazier ideas.

"There is one certain way to show the forces of 'radical Islamists,' of which Scalia so powerfully writes, that we are to be taken seriously. A prideful and strict adherence to our traditional standards of justice will put our enemies on notice," Lynch concludes.

For his part, President Bush predictably criticized the decision and there is little doubt that he and his administration will "stall" any legal hearings until his term of office is over.

Political historians no doubt never would have predicted years ago that so-called practitioners of a "conservative" philosophy such as Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John Roberts and President George Bush would have included lack of respect for basic human rights and due process in their core beliefs.

Perhaps that is what has given rise in recent years to a Libertarian offshoot of the Republican Party which does support individual rights and opposes the unchecked powers of government, prompting its presidential candidate Bob Barr to say of the court ruling -- "it is as much a victory for the American people as it is for any litigant…by allowing a defendant to seek relief in court, habeas corpus is one of the most important legal limits on government."

--REK