Roundup of Reaction to Boumediene

The Supreme Court's ruling today declaring that Guantánamo detainees can appeal their detention in U.S. courts has triggered a bumper crop of reaction from groups and experts on both sides. Some of the commentary on Boumediene v. Bush is in our story at the Legal Times web site. Here are excerpts from other comments we have received.

Richard Samp, Washington Legal Foundation: "Today’s decision means that vital decisions regarding the handling of enemy prisoners are now in the hands of the judicial branch, the branch of government least capable of determining how the release of those prisoners will affect national security. The decision is an undemocratic exercise of power that rejects the national security determinations not only of Congress and the President but of a long line of Supreme Court decisions as well."

Sen Arlen Specter (R-Pa.): "The Supreme Court’s reaffirmation of the constitutional right to habeas corpus will now allow the federal trial courts to review each detainee’s case to see that individualized justice is done and people are not held in custody unless there is competent evidence to show that they present a terrorist threat."

John Eastman, Chapman University School of Law: "The Court has taken upon itself review of military decisions that have never in our history been thought to reside in the judiciary. Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion systematically debunks Justice Kennedy’s legal analysis for the 5 justices in the majority, and Justice Scalia provides a stark window of insight into the harm that this decision will cause to our war effort."

Tahra Goraya, Council on American-Islamic Relations: "Today's Supreme Court decision is a victory for objective justice. Once again, the Bush administration’s weak assertion that its heavy-handed detention policy operates within the law has not found support in our nation’s highest court. The prison facility at Guantanamo Bay is a legal and public relations embarrassment for our country and should be promptly closed."

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.): "I take a backseat to no one when it comes to protecting our national security, but there is both a right and a wrong way to achieve this security—and time and again this President has chosen the wrong way. ... I’m hopeful that today’s decision will begin to restore America’s role as a moral force in the world."

Carmen Hernandez, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers: “The federal judiciary can now examine the legality of the military detention and commission trial system in its entirety. ... Today’s decisions call the administration’s entire overseas detention program into question."

Kenneth Roth, Human Rights Watch: "The Supreme Court decision has stripped Guantánamo of its reason for being: a law-free zone where prisoners can’t challenge their detention."

Bert Brandenburg, Justice At Stake: "Liberty always deserves a day in court, even in wartime. ... The history of court decisions in wartime shows time and again that the courts, carrying out their job defending the Constitution, have not undercut national security."

Vincent Warren, Center for Constitutional Rights: "The Supreme Court has finally brought an end to one of our nation’s most egregious injustices. ... With habeas you never would have had these men—so many of whom have been cleared of any wrongdoing—locked up and abused because no court was watching. In those cases, the government will now have to put up or shut up: it will have to show an impartial judge enough evidence to justify detention."

Mark Agrast, Center for American Progress: "That this increasingly conservative Court, so tone deaf to the demands of due process and so deferential to presidential power, has seen fit to rebuke the administration in such forceful terms, says much about the outlandishness of the policies pursued by the Bush administration."

Larry Cox, Amnesty International USA: "The U.S. Supreme Court decision is a limited victory for human rights. It will not stop U.S. officials from transferring detainees to places where their constitutional right to habeas corpus is not protected. It will not close Guantánamo. And it will likely not stop the Bush administration from finding devious ways to circumvent the law. President Bush—how many more Supreme Court decisions do you need to do the right thing and end injustice?"

Elisa Massimino, Human Rights First: "This is not only a victory for the rule of law, but will strengthen U.S. counterterrorism policy. Prolonged detention without charge and trials that violate our values as a Nation fuel terrorist propaganda and hamper efforts to nurture democracy and the rule of law around the world, which are so critical to confronting the threat of terrorism."

Comments

[KYJurisDoctor]

While I AGREE with the U. S. Supreme Court's "GITMO" majority opinion that "all enemy combatants detained during a war, at least insofar as they are confined in an area away from the battlefield, [but] over which the United States exercises 'absolute and indefinite' control, may seek a writ of habeas corpus in federal court," I also AGREE with Chief Justice Roberts (and his fellow dissenters) that the Writ can be suspended in time of war, such as the war on terror that we find ourselves involved in right now, and that suspension power belongs to Congress, such as Congress has exercised in this case, "as the Constitution surely allows Congress to [wield]."