HABEAS CORPUS: The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that prisoners held at the Guantanamo military prison have the right of habeas corpus. This marks the third time the Supreme Court told the Bush administration that its attempts to limit the legal rights of those held in the war against terror are unconstitutional.

The ruling means that more than 250 prisoners have the right to appear before a federal district court judge to challenge their detention. The government must provide sufficient evidence to the judge to warrant keeping the prisoners confined. The ruling says nothing about the legality of the capture and detention of the men—it just says they must come before a judge and as quickly as possible.

Suspected Terrorists' Legal Rights: Supreme Court and Bush Administration Disagree

Since 2001, the Bush administration has said prisoners captured during the war on terrorism do not have the same rights as other American citizens.

The Supreme Court dealt with Guantanamo in the following four cases:

2004-Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

• The Bush administration captured a U.S. citizen allegedly fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan, classified him as an enemy combatant and denied habeas corpus.
• The Supreme Court ruled that a U.S. citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant must be given the right to hear evidence against him or her in court.

2004-Rasul v. Bush

• The Bush administration said that prisoners detained in Guantanamo were on foreign soil and not subject to the same legal rights as prisoners in the United States.
• The Supreme Court ruled that the United States had full legal rights over Guantanamo, making it the same as U.S. soil and people detained there had some legal rights. It didn't specify how prisoners obtained those rights.

2006-Hamdan v. Bush

• President Bush set up the military commissions to try some of the prisoners in Guantanamo.
• The Supreme Court ruled that the president overstepped his executive powers by not involving Congress in legally establishing the military commissions.
• Subsequently, Congress did pass a law allowing the commissions.

2008- Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. United States

• This latest decision gives prisoners the opportunity to challenge their detention by having evidence against them heard in a federal court.
• It makes no ruling about the military commission, and has no effect on the 19 prisoners who are to be tried before the military commission.

National Security vs. War on Terrorism: Court Votes 5-4

Although presidents appoint Supreme Court justices, they do not represent political parties in their court decisions. Their legal interpretations of the U.S. Constitution can be categorized informally into conservative, moderate or liberal. (These are different than political categories.)

In the Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. United States case the justices divided between judicially liberal and judicially conservative lines.

Conservative Justices Argument: It's not the Supreme Court's role to negate rules and regulations laid down by the president and Congress.

Justices comprising the conservative wing are...

• John Roberts
• Antonin Scalia
• Clarence Thomas
• Samuel Alito

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Scalia wrote, "Most tragically it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving in a civilian court ... that evidence supports the confinement of each and every prisoner." (Reuters, 6/12/06)

Liberal Justices Argument: The Supreme Court has the right to decide where the boundary is between the Constitution and national security.

Justices comprising the liberal wing are...

• John Paul Stevens
• David H. Souter
• Ruth Bader Ginsburg
• Stephen G. Breyer

Conservatively leaning moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy was the swing vote on this case when he voted with the liberal judges.

In the majority opinion, Kennedy wrote, "Within the Constitution's separation-of-powers structure, few exercises of judicial power are as legitimate or as necessary as the responsibility to hear challenges to the authority of the Executive to imprison a person." (Washington Post, 6/15/08)

Copyright © 2010 Informify

Question for Readers:

Do you think the United States has the right to imprison people without charging them?