When I learned of the Supreme Court decision ruling in favor of giving the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay the right to habeas corpus, I couldn't stop myself from dancing. A little over a year ago, I wouldn't have known what habeas corpus was, nor would I have supported giving it to those men. I would have sided with the four dissenting Justices. However, after a year of intense study in the We the People program at Findlay High School (which included months of studying habeas corpus), my opinion has changed.

Habeas corpus is a centuries' old concept, mentioned as early as the Magna Carta, and was most likely in existence even before then. In Latin, the phrase literally means "(we command) that you have the body". The "Great Writ", as it is sometimes called, was given special importance in our own Constitution. Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution reads: "The privilege of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." In addition to that clear statement of how important the writ is, the Fourteenth Amendment contains the due process clause: "No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law." Due process contains the right to habeas corpus -and notice that the amendment says that any person shall receive due process, not just a citizen.

The Constitutional guarantees to this right are clear. A large amount of confusion results from what habeas corpus actually does. Of all the rights to secure individual liberty, habeas corpus is the most important and mot versatile of them all. Habeas corpus has many uses, but there is one which is particularly pertinent regarding the Supreme Court decision. It has the function of allowing an individual to be brought before a court of law and told what the charges are against them. It prevents the government from making arbitrary arrests and imprisonments. This is the most important function for the men at Guantanamo; many of them have been held for six years without even knowing the charges against them.

In discussions with friends, family members and teachers, the issue has come up time and again: these men are terrorists and don't deserve any rights. They have no respect for American lives. They don't follow any conventional rules of combat, they are not a unified force, they don't fight for an army and so on. And I agree, for the most part. Many of the men at Guantanamo Bay are killers, plain and simple. They would end their own lives for a chance to end the life of a single American. But my question is this: by denying them rights and due process, by violating our own Constitution and by subjecting these men to six years or more of imprisonment and torture, are we any better? Aren't we giving the terrorists exactly what they want, by fighting dirty ourselves? As Justice Kennedy said, the Constitution was not made to be discarded or ignored when it suits us. It was made to stand as the law of the land even in the most trying times.

By giving these men the right to habeas corpus, the right to be told the charges against them and the right to stand trial, we are not giving them Get Out of Jail Free cards. We're giving them the rights that any person under our jurisdiction has. And in doing so, we're preserving an important part of American law, and setting an example for the rest of the world.

Learn more about this author, Bailey Shoemaker Richards.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

---

Add your voice

Know something about Assessing the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees?
We want to hear your view. Write now!