[The Times, U.K.]
O Globo, Brazil
Global 'Relief' at U.S. Supreme Court's 'Violent Slap' at
Bush
"The verdict from of the highest judicial body in America comes as a
relief to all who have been concerned - and with a good dose of reason - about
the encroachment on individual rights and civil liberties in the United States
after September 11th."
By William Waack
Translated By Brandi
Miller
June 12, 2008
Brazil
- O Globo - Original Article (Portuguese)
The verdict from of the highest judicial body in America comes as a
relief to all who have been concerned - and with a good dose of reason - about
the encroachment on individual rights and civil liberties in the United States
after September 11th. It was a violent slap at the Bush Government. The result
was hailed as a historic decision in both the American and international press.
From a legal point standpoint, what was at stake was the principle
of habeas corpus, in effect denied prisoners at Guantánamo by the “Military
Commissions Act of 2006 
,” by which the Bush Administration
withdrew the jurisdiction of the civil courts to try prisoners in Cuba. In
terms of their standing before a "conventional" military court, the
scheme set up in 2006 provided for greater protection for prisoners.
[Editor's Note: Habeas corpus is Latin for "you
may have the body" (subject to examination). It is a writ which requires a
person detained by the authorities be brought before a court of law so that the
legality of the detention may be examined ].
But today's verdict of the American Supreme Court makes it unacceptable
for terrorist detainees at Guantánamo to be tried without being accompanied by
an attorney or for them to be denied an accurate knowledge of the underlying
charges against them. The majority of judges on the Court determined that all
of this violates "habeas corpus" as anchored in the American
Constitution.
Perhaps the biggest blow the Court delivered against Bush and the men
who conduct the foreign policy and domestic security of the United States is
political. The judges ruled on a central problem that has been observed in all
democratic countries which have had to face the recent wave of terrorism. How
much encroachment on civil rights and freedom can be tolerated in the name of
domestic security?
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and Spain, to mention a few
of the European democracies, confront the same dilemma. Hence the horror with
which many commentators in Europe - and America as well - have observed the
practices of the United States regarding prisoners captured in Pakistan and
Afghanistan (many of whom are no doubt al-Qaeda fighters of Osama bin Laden).
People look at a 1297 copy of the Magna Carta before it was sold at
Sotheby's auction house for $21,321,000,
in New York, Dec. 18, 2007.
“The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in
force, in extraordinary times,” wrote Judge Anthony M. Kennedy in the majority
opinion of the Court . This is a stupendous statement and is at the heart
of a principle that makes the rule of law and democracy superior to other
existing regimes.
However, even with this judgment, it isn't clear what will happen now
to the 270 Guantánamo prisoners. The two presidential candidates have already
said that they want to close the prison, which suggests that at least some of
the detainees will be heard by courts in Washington. Also likely is that the
topic will become an election theme in the campaign until November.
John McCain, himself held as a prisoner of war in Vietnam for over five
years, helped write the “Military Commissions Act of 2006." When
commenting on the Supreme Court decision on Thursday (June 12), McCain
preferred to cite a losing opinion of one of the judges, who wrote that the
decision abolished a number of protections guaranteed to foreigners detained as
“enemy combatants,” and put nothing in their place.
CLICK
HERE FOR PORTUGUESE VERSION
[Posted by WORLDMEETS.US June 19, 11:45pm]
