Volume 43 | Number 1 Fall 2007
Standards and Procedures for Classifying “Enemy Combatants”: Congress, What Have You Done?
Response: Standards and Procedures for Classifying “Enemy Combatants”: Judiciary, What Have You Done? by Elizabeth A. Hardy
V. Conclusion
The information I have just relayed is significant—not to merely suggest mischief by the Administration, the military, or Congress, though that has certainly occurred—but because we must look beyond the procedures themselves in order to assess the CSRTs and ARBs with a critical and clear view. As mentioned, these procedures, the actual proceedings, and resulting determinations, were approved by Congress ex post facto, particularly with respect to the CSRT status determinations. Given the circumstances surrounding how these individuals came to be at Guantánamo and the fact that the CSRTs and the ARBs potentially mean a lifelong sentence in extremely harsh conditions for many, shouldn’t these procedures and proceedings be of the highest standards? Shouldn’t they be chock full of due process guarantees to ensure that we have separated the real combatants from innocent civilians and that we are holding our real enemies? As Charlie Swift stated so compellingly in his keynote address, “[l]et us not just talk about what approach is allowed under law, but what approach America should take.”72
Let us at least start by adhering to the Constitution our Founding Fathers created in a time of crisis and established as fundamental to our democracy. Let us live up to these standards and employ the principles that make this country our America.
Response: Standards and Procedures for Classifying “Enemy Combatants”: Judiciary, What Have You Done? by Elizabeth A. Hardy
If you would like to submit a response to this article, please read our submission guidelines and submit your response here.
Footnotes
For complete footnote citations, download the PDF.