In the aftermath of 9/11, the nearest that justice came to the capture of Osama bin Laden was the apprehension of his bodyguard and driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan. His case, including the thousands rounded up and the hundreds detained in Guantanamo, is far from heralding redress to the 2,973 fatalities of the terrorist attack. Instead, it only skirts to the collateral victims of any terrorist attack. This notion of injustice is a small penalty for the Arabs & Muslims as they are profiled and forced to yield their liberty. In this case, it is viewed by many as foist of an image of security and public safety.
The Supreme Court in June 2006, in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, accentuated for us the delicate balance between the privacy rights of suspected terrorist vis-a-vis public safety. Public Opinion Alleged coercion characterizes the government’s handling of suspected terrorists. Most prosecutors believe that, “the American public is willing to make a Faustian bargain at the expense of American traditional legal rights,” (Washington Times, 2004) However, public opinion reveals that in both ends of the spectrum only 3-4% would take the extreme pro-security or pro-liberty stand.
“Majority maintains that there is no need for a trade-off in civil liberty to achieve security,” (Abdolian & Takooshian, 2003). Guantanamo The ambivalence over Camp X-ray could is from strong criticism against alleged torture, secret trials and detention of suspects in the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp. Evans & Morgan (1999) articulated public skepticism when allegations of ill-treatment can easily be fabricated that they become part of the strategy of the detained prisoners.
“If we are to believe the media, however, the long-term caging of detainees at Guantanamo, the torturing of prisoners in Iraq and the “disappearing” of suspects in Afghanistan, the incarceration of individuals without trial or representation is at the cost of spawning thousands of angry jihadists eager to take the detainees’ place. ” (Washington Times, 2005) Military Tribunal For centuries the Military tribunals only served to try individuals when civil courts are either not open or considered not suitable (Fisher,2003).
In the case of Hamdan, the U. S. Supreme Court held that military commissions be established to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay violated both the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions. Dissenting view would argue that suspected terrorists fall within the label of an illegal combatant and therefore not protected by the Geneva Convention, which in current legal discourse seems designed to put detainees beyond the reach of any law. (Berman, 2004)
Abdolian, Lisa Finnegan & Takooshian, Harold (2003) PATRIOT Act: Civil Liberties, the Media, and Public Opinion. Fordham Urban Law Journal. (30/4) Berman, Nathaniel 2004) Privileging Combat: Contemporary Conflict and the Legal Construction of War. Retrieved Nov. 1, 2006 http://www. law. utoronto. ca/documents/globalization/Berman1- Privileging1105. pdf Evans, Malcolm D. & Morgan, Rodney (1999) Protecting Prisoners: The Standards of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture in Context, Oxford University (p 267)
Fisher, Louis (2003) Military Tribunals: A Sorry History, Presidential Studies Quarterly (33/3) Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U. S. (2006) Kerwin, Donald (2002) National Security and Immigrant Rights, NATION, retrieved May 15, 2003 from http://www. thenation. com/doc. mhtml? i=20030106&s=kerwin The Washington Times (2004) Legal Costs of Terror War. (p A19) The Washington Times (2005) The Cost of Guantanamo, (p B02)