Supreme Court Decision

Even after talking to the younger of my two lawyer sons in an attempt to determine the implications of the Supreme Court decision regarding the Habeas Corpus rights, or lack thereof, of those held in detention in Guantanamo Bay, I admit to confusion.

Thankfully, the "ingenious" inventor of some controversial memoranda at the Justice Department, John Yoo, has written an article critical of the decision that helped clarify my opinion of the decision.

John Yoo thinks that the decision threw out precedents giving the President full authority to deal with enemy combatants during war. In short, when war occurs, those held as prisoners fall outside our judicial structures. Given the precedents he cites, I can understand his claim.

But then, it became clear to me what is at issue, viz, "war".

I have never agreed to the fact that we were at war with any nation. The Senate has never voted a proclamation for war. What we have is Bush's rhetoric that the horrendous actions by some radical extremists represents "war". From my perspective, this was always an overkill, designed to stir up the fears of our citizenry.

I admit that the terrorists actions were extreme, but their agents were not going to be objects of warfare as much as police actions designed to root out those who either accomplished the acts or planned/supported them.

Thus, I conclude that we should provide habeas corpus procedures to those held since they should be subject to crimes that can be rightfully prosecuted in our courts.