In whose hands are we safest?

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in a 5/4 decision that it will now be up to federal courts, and not the trials committees appointed by congress and the president, to rule on the validity of holding people captured on foreign soil as enemy combatants. In an editorial debate on USA Today’s web site, there are two sides represented as to how to interpret this ruling. On the one hand you have the side that sees the court’s ruling as reaffirming American values and the right to habeas corpus. It points out that many prisoners have been held at GitMo for years without justifiable cause. This may be true, however the opposing view in the opposition article cites one of the dissenting judges remarks that “at least 30 former Guantanamo detainees returned to the battlefield to resume their war against the United States.” The opposition goes on to call the ruling a power grab by the Supreme Court and warns that “Judges should keep the potentially lethal consequences in mind before they contemplate overruling military experts and ordering additional releases.”

A very interesting debate to be sure. Should the judiciary be taking on itself the duty of determining enemy combatants in a time of war? It is unprecedented and the court could not cite any particular part of the constitution nor previous case that granted them this right but argued that “the doctrine that it was upholding is enshrined in the Constitution.” Another question is, as foreign aliens and prisoners of war, should the detainees even have the right of habeas corpus and be treated by the courts almost like citizens of the United States? The president and congress don’t seem to think so but at the same time they want to spread our ideals of freedom and democracy around the world and the right to fair trial was one of the most important ingredients that the founding fathers sought to include in our government. But are the courts more capable than the military tribunals of determining who is a threat and who is not? Yet to be seen.

And what of the charges by the executive and legislative against the judicial of a power grab? Is this a Marbury vs. Madison type defining moment in the relationship between the branches of government? It wouldn’t seem to carry that much weight but it does appear to be an assertion by the Supreme Court of its authority over the other branches in an area that it had not previously exercised power. The question of who’s authority will prevail in the trial of foreign prisoners of war seems to have been answered by the ruling today. But the question remains, in whose hands is the nation safer from the threat of terrorists, the military review empowered by the President and Congress, or the Judicial Courts? We will just have to hope, the courts.