Friday, September 5, 2008

Opinion

Public Opinion: Was the Supreme Court Correct in Affirming Habeas Corpus Rights for the Guantánamo Detainees?

Posted June 20, 2008

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that detainees held at Guantánamo Bay have the right to challenge their imprisonment in federal court. Yale Law Prof. Jack Balkin writes for U.S. News that the opinion was correct, while Glenn Sulmasy, a national security and human rights fellow at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, says it was a tragic and dangerous overreach by the court. Who is right? Was the Supreme Court correct in affirming habeas corpus for the Guantánamo detainees? Post your thoughts below.

Previously: Should the United States build new nuclear power plants?

  • Print  |
  • Subscribe  |
  • |
  • |
  • Sphere: Related Content

Reader Comments

Cialis

Coll blog.

Thanks, webmaster.

Viagra Cialis

Coll blog.

Thanks, webmaster.

Habeus does not mean right to a fair trial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeus_corpus

This is not a matter of the rights of American citizens. It is also not a matter of saying whether a person has a right to a trial or not.

A Writ of Habeus Corpus is a legal writ allowing a detainee to petition a ***CIVIL*** court of law that they are being held unlawfully. This right has never been granted by the US or England to FOREIGNERS detained ON NON-US SOIL. Those matters are handled by ***military*** courts.

Precedent: 1950- Johnson v. Eisentrager. Germans detained after Germany's surrender in WWII. The Germans were detained for providing aid to the Japanese. Justice Jackson ruled that they were not entitled to Habeus Corpus and the handling of the prisoners was to be handled by military courts rather than CIVIL courts.

-Do you have kids? Do you grant them allowances? Require them to do chores?

-How about their friends? Or the bully who picks on them at school? Do you give those kids allownaces and tell them to mow your lawn? NO.

If you have a problem with a citizen of someone else's family you dont treat them as a member of YOUR family. Your not entitled to do that. They are members of someone ELSE's family.

MILITARY courts are designed to deal with members of OTHER countries on OTHER countries' soil.

CIVIL courts are for CITIZENS of the US and those detained on US soil.

Add your thoughts

Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

advertisement

Washington Whispers

Washington Whispers

California Buzz:
eBay vs. Gov. Moonbeam?

The buzz is it might be Whitman vs. Attorney General Jerry Brown.

advertisement

Michael Barone

Michael Barone

Sarah Palin: A Star is Born in the GOP

No one can say Palin is a lightweight now.

advertisement

NEWSLETTER

Sign up today for the latest headlines from U.S. News & World Report delivered to you free.

RSS FEEDS

Personalize your U.S. News with our feeds of blogs and breaking news headlines.

U.S. NEWS MOBILE

U.S. News daily briefings are also available on your mobile device.

WIDGETS

Embed exclusive U.S. News headlines, rankings, columns, and blog postings to your Web site, blog, or social network.

Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our Terms and Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.