America’s legal system reviewed in light of Guantanamo

The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing today about how the Bush Administration’s railed detainee policies have hurt the fight against terrorism. The witnesses discussed the lower credibility of the United States’ action in Guantanamo Bay from a legal perspective.

Colonel Will Gunn, retired chief defense council for the Department of Defense office of military commissions, said that the government has taken several actions with respect to detainee policy in the post 9/11 era that have significantly “eroded this nation’s standing in terms of respect for human rights.” Gunn outlined several factors that show how the United States has done this through hiding prisoners, coercive interrogations, and an overall policy shift on Geneva Conventions.

“The system I encountered had several drawbacks which generated controversy, diminished the U.S.’s prestige at home and abroad, and fueled widespread perceptions that the system was unfair,” Gunn said. While some of the problems have been addressed by the Supreme Court, many still remain. Gunn recommended using the court martial system an federal courts to dispose of the cases of detainees that should be tried in a court of law.

David Rivkin, partner in the law firm Baker and Hostetler LLP, supported the Bush Administration’s actions in Guantanamo. He said that although members of Congress have “decried the detainee’s fate” at Guantanamo, few have offered suitable alternatives for the prisoners, so they must be keep there.

The individuals who crafted the policy in Guantanamo and the different legal aspects of the “war on terror” viewed the constitution as an obstacle and viewed the checks and balances of the U.S. government unnecessary, said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies. Martin said in order to restore America’s standing as an example of just law, it must reinstall due process of law and the right of habeas corpus for the detainees at Guantanamo.