This issue makes me angry. When angry, I don’t always write coherently. I’m happy to clarify.

There are some news stories that I look at and wonder how the people named in the story could possibly be so stupid. But I’m used to those stories being about people who defenestrate themselves or other Darwin Award-worthy activities. It’s very rare (though becoming more common) that I ask myself this question when reading an article about public officials.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that prisoners (about 270 of them, taken during the Iraq and Afghanistan armed conflicts) held at Guantánamo Bay as “enemy combatants” have the constitutional right of habeas corpus. The “enemy combatant” status and the fact that they are being held in Cuba had prevented them from having hearings. Approximately 250 of the 270 were being held with no charges having been filed. The Bush Administration, in their persistent efforts to circumvent long respected laws for political gain, had chosen Guantánamo specifically because they believe that U.S. laws would not inconvenience them in their destruction of the Constitution.

Habeas corpus itself is generally uncontroversial. In fact, it’s routine in for criminal trials in the United States. It is simply the process by which a prisoner can challenge why they’ve been imprisoned and to require the accuser to provide adequate proof that they had reason to detain the person. It is not, as Justice Scalia and John McCain would have you believe, letting a terrorist go for two reasons:

1. The government cannot prove that many of the detainees are terrorists or are guilty of anything more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
2. Habeas corpus does not mean letting someone go! It means that the government has to produce proof that these people were detained for a good reason.

I am left, then, to wonder what the Bush administration is smoking. Habeas corpus is not a big deal. Why are they worried? It’s because they don’t have proof that most of these people did anything wrong. And the prospect of following the law makes Bush and his cronies shake in their boots.

All this decision really means is that detainees can go through the legal system so they can be brought to justice or found not guilty, instead of held indefinitely. What is the rationale for holding people without recourse? What does it accomplish? Absolutely nothing, but this Administration wants to sacrifice our core values in order to “win.”

Ultimately, in a very, very close 5-4 split in the Supreme Court (all too common in the Roberts court), the Supreme Court did the right thing. They provided a legal means for detainees to move the legal process along by having their cases tried in the United States. What angers me is not the decision, which I’m happy with. It’s the fact that this was an issue for debate at all. What state is the country in if we actually have to debate whether detainees get legal protection? These were not extraordinary circumstances either. They’ve been sitting in prison for years now; the government can’t argue they haven’t had enough time to collect evidence. This is simply based on the Bush Administration’s faulty rationale. Their argument is something like this:

1. These prisoners are terrorists. We lose if we give terrorists legal rights.

This argument is silly because, as I said above, these people are not necessarily terrorists. And by giving people legal rights, it is not at all a sign of weakness. The people who hate America don’t hate us just because of where we’re born, they hate us because of the principles we uphold. They hate us because we live in a country where women can drive cars and people have freedom. This administration has responded to that by cutting down and personal privacy and making this a political issue. But the destruction of our core values is what terrorists are looking for. Destroying what we hold dear is what shows terrorists they’ve won.

2. “[This decision] will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.” -Justice Antonin Scalia, Dissenting

This is just plainly not true. Habeas corpus is meant to determine whether or not someone is threatening enough to remain behind bars, so if there is proof of wrongdoing, the prisoner will be detained. We need to trust the courts to make good decisions about who should be detained.

But going past the reason why Scalia is wrong, I should point out that Scalia should not be making comments like that. It is nowhere near his job description to be predicting how many Americans will be killed and, without further supporting his claim, his comments are irresponsible, but indicative of the unprofessional way Scalia uses his authority.

3. The courts will be overloaded by these detainees.

Not so much. In 2007, district courts alone saw 57,172 criminal filings, so I doubt 270 are going to make much of a difference.

Those reasons just scratch the surface. The Bush Administration even made the argument once that the Geneva Convetions don’t apply to our prisoners in Guantánamo (also struck down by the Supreme Court).

And now we arrive at John McCain. It positively baffles me that a person who was held in Vietnam could be in favor of a practice so clearly wrong. McCain said the decision is “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”

When I hear John McCain, I’m witnessing the slow death of the country. (If McCain wins, by the way, we might as well break into the National Archives and tear the Constitution and Bill of Rights into shreds). Why is this even being debated? Why are we even debating that these people should get fair trials?

Everybody should get fair trials. If they are a serial murderer, a bomber, a terrorist, or any other flavor of criminal, they deserve a fair trial. We need to trust the justice system. If the Administration can’t produce proof, then these people should not be held. By keeping these prisoners in the dark, we’ve delayed almost 300 important trials. The world should know what these prisoners have done. The world should see that America won’t destroy it’s values for a few hundred terrorists. The world should see that, if they are terrorists, the prisoners are punished properly, humanely, and in accordance with our laws. This is should not be a political issue, but once again, this Administration has chosen to circumvent our laws for their messed up ideology.