Supreme Court Sides Against The President

This is an interesting ruling by the Supreme Court regarding Guantanamo Bay.

Essentially, detainees are now able to ask under what charge they are being held. Does this mean a terrorist can now go ahead and sue the United States government if he was arrested by unlawful means? Is this an issue of American sovereignty and its right to defend itself or a fundamental human rights issue? Or Both? Will this lead to Miranda Rights? Will they be able to post bail? What is the limit of tolerance? Would people want to have terrorists post bail?

Of course, each side on the debate will offer their thoughts. Both posit fair arguments.

Those who like the ruling claim the United States abandoned its moral and legal principles by detaining alleged terrorists - many of whom have not been given a fair trial for six years now. Furthermore, the suspension of habeas corpus is simply not acceptable in a democracy - especially considering innocents may have been arrested.

There is a 1943-feel (which is disturbing to many) that the United States would take such drastic measures regarding this issue. How to bring to justice despicable cretins without abandoning cherished values and principles? Principles so basic they stretch back to the Magna Carta.

Should they have been given a fair trial at the very least?

Most people who take this position, and I'm just guessing here, feel the terrorist threat is exaggerated; a propaganda tool to push a government agenda to make the elite rich.

On the other side of the coin, this is a decision that is treasonous. To them, the United States is argued to be in a state of war and extending such benefits to enemy combatants is plain wrong and irresponsible. It's all a matter of national security and America has a right to defend itself as it sees fit. Military tribunals are a just reaction to a violent actor like terrorist organizations.

What message does this ruling send to the enemy? Giving terrorists any rights is absurd. It's already tough enough to prove a case against criminals so why begin bureaucratic nonsense for killers?

For proponents of this, it's a simple black and white issue, there's no exaggeration to the war on terror since the enemy declared war on 9/11.

My personal view is that it's indeed hard to provide all the comforts of Western law to terrorists (and I use the word knowing full well there is not agreed definition of who and what constitutes "terrorism") who reject any international legal, moral or political construct set up. In other words, the Geneva Conventions do not apply to murderous thugs. It applies to civilized nation-states.

It's a tough decision for a democracy to make and whatever decisions taken is bound to elicit spirited debate.

Guantanamo is an evolving reaction to a murderous and malignant player on the world stage. It's a better safe than sorry calculation. Now whether this is a cynical ploy to reap profits I cannot say.

The U.S. will probably need to (and I imagine it will) adjust its methods moving forward when dealing with suspected terrorists.