Recently the Supreme Court ruled that Guantanamo Bay detainees have the right to challenge their detentions in federal court. Naturally, this provokes the Chicken Little response from the White House. Dana Perino warns the ruling means that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be able to roam the streets of Baltimore, or Fort Lauderdale, or wherever he pleases! Well, the only way this happens is if the United States government has been unable to compile any evidence whatsoever that he is a threat to the public or that he has committed acts of war against the United States. And if no such evidence exists, why should he be held in a military prison?
The truth, as detailed in the above AP article, is much more nuanced. Yes, the ruling may expedite the release of prisoners who are actually not terrorists, but cases of mistaken identity or simply unlucky Muslims civilians. But KSM would almost certainly still be confined to Guantanamo. And those who have been released would not necessarily be placed on US soil. In fact, the Supreme Court has not indicated where these detainees would be released, nor has any other federal court.
This is one of many examples where the so-called "liberal" justices are actually giving deference to the executive branch and yet still upholding the rule of law. They are ensuring that Guantanamo detainees are afforded proper legal protection, yet still giving the executive branch almost complete control over their fates. This is not judicial activism in the slightest. It is the last line of defense against a secretive and stubborn administration who just likes to do things their own way.
No comments:
Post a Comment