Originally published on the CGS blog on June 16, 2008.
Unsurprising outrage from conservatives has erupted in response to last week’s Supreme Court ruling, granting habeas corpus rights to detainees held at Guantanamo. It seems that right-wingers have assumed a zero-sum mentality regarding the issue of basic legal rights to that of siding with terrorism. Scalia noted that the Justices of majority opinion can be seen as “nothing less than accomplices to murder.” That is quite an attack. Many might find it offensive to be called a murderer when the grant of habeas corpus is no more than an exercise of due process and justice, in no way equating to murder. My quesion is, where and when did our country lose sight of our accepted norms of “innocent until proven guilty” and the right to know one’s charge?
Not only have we ignored basic standards, but the military’s implementation of debility, dread, and dependency (DDD), has become the norm. DDD is based on the expectation of the detainees’s loss of self by breaking him down mentally and phsycially by methods of torture, resulting in a feeling of helplessness. Effectually, the detainee relies on the interrogator (dependency) for relief and the potential assurance that his family will be safe from harm. By granting the right of habeas corpus, a prisoner’s dependency is lessened. Some view this as a negative, however most certainly can be seen as a positive in light of the fact that many innocent detainees have admitted that before their wrongful apprehension, they had no ill-feeling toward the US, but after being interrogated and tortured, a new found hatred was realized. Therefore, giving relevant rights to the detainees will most likely limit that hatred.
By accepting torturous methods as fair practice under the false assumption that all detainees are guilty and their “confessions” need to be extracted, applying the initial right to habeas corpus becomes even more essential than it already is to hopefully release innocent suspects. Torture is not acceptable under any circumstances, but if our government is still wavering on officially and publically outlawing its use, the enforcement of due process will save some innocent prisoners from wrongful treatment.
Many who favor of a rejection of habeas corpus and an acceptance of torture rely on the notion that these prisoners are “enemy combatants” who do not warrant legal protection under Geneva as they are a “different enemy” and this is a “different war.” These excuses are insulting to our nation and to the innocent detainees subject to this horrific treatment. The point here, is that regardless of guilt or innocence, basic rights of due process are not to be discarded. To modulate our standards depending on the individual conflict or situation is dangerous – our so-called “word” will lose all meaning. Instead of painting defenders of Constitutional rights and rights guaranteed by the Geneva Conventions as traiters who are soft on terrorsim, maybe the real fallacy lies in those who deny those rights and accept violations of human rights, which most certainly go against this nation’s values.
