Today was a good day.  As noted in this article (and many others), the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of granting basic constitutional liberties to those persons currently detained in Guantanamo bay.  This military installation, purposely chosen by the executive because of its foreign location (and thus extraconstitutional jurisdiction), has served as home for numerous "enemy combatants".   Don't know what an enemy combatant is?  Courtesy of the Military Commissions Act, the president at his sole discretion can label somebody with this title, thus stripping them of any right to habeas corpus, visits with a lawyer, any a number of other normally-guaranteed provisions allowing somebody to face his accuser and appeal the ruling.

Why grant liberties to an accused criminal?  Because without these liberties, there is nothing preventing the politician in power from targeting political enemies and other perceived threats.  Dictators have long enjoyed this power; presidents have not. Until after 9/11, that is. But in today's 5-4 ruling (PDF), the Supreme Court argued that constitutional liberties are to be afforded the alleged criminals being detained.  President Bush disagrees, of course, but what's more interesting is the pro-neocon cheerleading done by the dissenting judges.

Perhaps the most interesting part of any judicial ruling is not the concurrence, but the dissent.  I prefer to start with the dissent to see what the opposition has to say, and thus read the concurrence through that lens to understand both points of view.  Justice Scalia, who authored the dissent in this close ruling, has essentially picked up his pom poms to say that the world is a more dangerous place now that we're allowing "enemy combatants" to challenge their accusers in the court system. We wouldn't want that, now, would we? Well... would we?

Is it a bad thing to allow accused criminals to sue for justice?  Is the government always 100% correct in their accusations?  Indeed not, for many alleged perpetrators have been released with low fanfare by the government after being forced to admit that they were wrong.  If you were accused of aiding terrorists because of a confusion with your last name on a government watch list, and were detained at an airport and flown to another country, where you were locked up in solitary confinement and barred from speaking with an attorney, wouldn't you like a constitutional provision or two in your favor?  I sure would. I believe that there are some evil men locked up in Cuba right now.

It's quite likely that some of those accused are indeed guilty of the crime.  But that's beside the point--what's more important here is that the framework of liberty established by the Founders (and by God, who said that the constitution is for all mankind) not be cast aside when the president says that there are boogey men who should be locked up in a dungeon somewhere in a foreign country where nobody will know.  That's not the America I want to live in, regardless of what Justice Scalia and his dissenting colleagues think might happen as a result of today's ruling. Our nation's recent quest to abandon our liberties in hope for safety simply won't work.

Wisely did Judge Andrew P. Napolitano write: The government's fidelity to the Constitution, which limits its powers and guarantees human liberty, is nowhere else more sorely tested than in wartime. (via Quoty) In light of what has happened in recent years, "tested" is perhaps too tame a word.

I applaud the Court's decision today, for it will serve as one small piece of duct tape to hold together the Constitution which is hanging by a thread.   We need a lot more where that came from.

- - -

Connor Boyack is a blogger , husband, web designer, Latter-day Saint, constitutionalist, paleocon, classical liberal, preparedness practitioner, budding philanthropist, and master's student of political economy. He's from Poway, CA but lives in Happy Valley.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment