Originally published on the CGS blog on June 13, 2008.
History was made yesterday. The Supreme Court ruled, June 12, 2008, that prisoners held at Guantanamo warrant legal rights under the Constitution to challenge their detainment. No longer will inadequate excuses made by the Bush administration of denying due process to prisoners be tolerated. After two previous decisions made by the high court were circumvented by Congress to exclude detainee access to civilian court, justice is finally being served.
The United States of America was founded on values and beliefs of certain inalienable human rights, and as the War in Iraq has progressed, our government has seemed to have forgotten those standards. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion included that “the laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.” As further information is disclosed regarding the inhumane treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, and other prisons in Iraq, by the US military, justifying a denial of due process and human rights based on the rhetoric of the type of war and the type of enemy we face, becomes more difficult.
We must not be fooled by the opinion of Justice Antonin Scalia. Noted in his dissent, he stated that the nation is “at war with radical Islamists,” and the Supreme Court decision “will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.” First, we are not at war with radical Islamists,and that must be made clear. The US is at war against the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other terrorists. To make a statement that we are at war against a religious faction is irresponsible. Scalia is wrong to generalize and attack an entire sect of people, many of whom are not terrorists.
Furthermore, Scalia’s claim that giving rights to detainees will make Americans less safe, is the stark opposite of what many analysts argue. To not grant appropriate rights, and to torture detainees, fuels the animosity and hatred engrained in terrorists. Providing rights to prisoners may not only safeguard the American people more so than to not, but it is the right thing to do.
What kind of message does a retraction from established values send to our citizens and to the rest of the world? The reality is, that with US hegemonic authority on the international stage, the responsibility to act as a leader is vital: we have a duty to uphold morality even in the roughest of times; otherwise, a slippery slope, including excuses as to why other states can reject “rules of war,” will soon follow. When faced with adversity and confusing times, as the nature of war in the 21st century is undoubtedly changing, we need to rely more on principle, morality, and conscience to ensure that all humans are guaranteed justice.
