The reaction is mixed on the recent Supreme Court decision, Boumediene vs. Bush whereby the Court affirms that the detainees at the U.S.-run Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba have the right of habeas corpus and cannot be detained indefinitely, without being charged.A recent article in catholicnews.com writes that the decision “is a hopeful sign that upholds American values for anyone accused of even the most heinous offenses.”
Libertarian Presidential candidate, Bob Barr writes , “The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the importance of the ancient writ of habeas corpus, one of the bedrock guarantees of American liberty,” and challenges John McCain, who called the decision “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country” to a debate on the issue.
Rush Limbaugh is upset that the ruling means that, should he be captured, Osama bin Laden will be presumed innocent and will face a trial in the Federal courts.
I don’t really understand what McCain or Limbaugh would want as an alternative. If bin Laden is not entitled to a trial then what do they propose instead? Surely, they’re not saying we should just execute him without a trial. Even Timothy McVeigh was given his day in court.
