Washington Week: Student Voices (O)

Editorial: Court's Guantanamo decision was the right one
By DI Board
The Daily Iowan, U. Iowa
June 20, 2008

Following the Supreme Court's decision to afford Guantánamo Bay prisoners the right to challenge their incarceration in civilian courts, an air of the blackest humor is building; prisoners are just now being offered their basic human rights? To some, this decision may seem outrageous. After all, what rights do those who inflict endless terror upon fellow human beings actually have? The answer: full human rights.

The writ of habeas corpus suggests that a person can seek relief from the unlawful imprisonment of himself or another. Furthermore, this prisoner must be brought before a court so that the court may determine if the prisoner should be released. This is something that many Americans often take for granted. For example, a person suspected of murdering her or his spouse - no matter how incriminating the evidence - still has the right to a trial. If he or she is convicted, the court then determines the person's punishment. It would be unheard of for the defendant to be jailed without a fair trial. However, in the past, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 did just that. The act, which took away the jurisdiction of the federal courts to hear habeas-corpus petitions from Guantánamo prisoners who challenged their detainment, was a vehement denial of rights.

Bottom line: American prisoners are afforded the rights they acquired at birth when they officially became human beings. But doesn't it seem a little hypocritical that if a non-American were to commit any act of terror, access to these rights is suddenly forbidden? At which point does this terror-monger officially lose her or his rights as a human being? Maybe these rights are lost as the first bomb explodes, killing several passersby. But if this is the case, then why, after the single bullet that ends the life of an American passes through the barrel of a gun, does the gunman still have basic human rights? Both cases are arguably acts of murder. We as a society would, for sure, question the gunman's sanity, but there would never be a point where becoming a criminal would inhibit his access to human rights. He wouldn't simply be jailed for the rest of his life unless a judge saw this punishment as just.

One question should also be examined: Who has the right to determine who should be afforded human rights and who should not? Humans themselves seem to have a little too much at stake in the issue to make this decision; even though a person may believe that a terrorist has absolutely no right to be treated as other non-terrorists, this person would feel quite differently if his own rights were at stake and it was a matter of whether he would be offered a fair trial or not. For this reason, we as a society are certainly in no position to dole out human rights, nor are we in any position to deny them. Perhaps, then, as much of a grammatical stretch as it may seem to be, human rights belong to every human. From hardened criminal to Good Samaritan, all still have human rights. Regardless of the labels we attach to those people who choose to do bad things (monster, criminal, or heathen), these people are still humans nonetheless.

We aren't talking about American rights. We aren't talking about the rights of those who society deems "normal." The major concern here is human rights. We tip our hats to the Supreme Court for recognizing this issue.

[ Back to Student Voices ]