U.S. and Civil Liberties – Are the Two Irreconcilable?
Posted Jul 09, 2004
©MurthyDotCom
I recently attended an interesting session on civil liberties and terrorism in the 21^st century. As some of you may know, I traveled to London for a Harvard Law School Alumni meeting in mid-June 2004. The speakers were Harvard Law School professors and Judge Goodhart of the British Parliament, the House of Lords, with active participation from many of us for whom this topic is both fascinating and troubling.
©MurthyDotCom
Recently, the British Parliament took the unusual step of issuing a report to condemn the United States' actions in Guantanamo Bay as violating international laws and the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners and principles of human rights. Lady Justice Arden, an attendee of this session but herself a speaker at another session, was appalled at the treatment of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners. She expressed her concerns about the flagrant violation of civil liberties in U.S. treatment of the prisoners of war. This treatment has been justified by calling the prisoners “enemy combatants” and depriving them of fundamental rights and civil liberties in Guantanamo Bay.
©MurthyDotCom
Even the U.S. Supreme Court seemed troubled by our government’s actions in Guantanamo Bay. As reported in this week's (July 19, 2004) MurthyBulletin article entitled, U.S. Supreme Court Accords Certain Rights to Detainees, the U.S. Supreme Court on June 28, 2004, held in Rasul v. Bush that U.S. courts have jurisdiction to review challenges to the legality of detention of foreign nationals who are detained as enemy combatants in the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. The U.S. had argued that, since Cuba is outside the territory of the U.S., the enemy combatants should not be afforded any procedural due process protections under the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court found that since the United States exercises complete control and exclusive jurisdiction over Guantanamo Bay, the land is within the jurisdiction of the U.S., and the detainees may challenge their detention in the District Court. The Court also noted that nothing in the right to habeas corpus review limits that right to U.S. citizens.
©MurthyDotCom
This case and the reaction of the international community, particularly our allies in the war against terror, should give us pause to consider whether we can afford to sacrifice the fundamental principles of our nation. We cannot sacrifice our intrinsic beliefs and our identity as a nation of immigrants, a nation built on the foundation of inherent freedoms, tossing those values out when they are no longer convenient for us. We need to stand firm in our belief that U.S. security, while paramount for our well-being, also requires that other fundamental interests continue to be protected. It will not be an easy task. No nation has an easy task when it comes to surviving forces that threaten and challenge fundamental beliefs. Our nation must stand behind its fundamental values if we are to withstand this 21st century challenge.