MB Civic

To the Editor:

Re “Justices, 5-3, Broadly Reject Bush Plan to Try Detainees” (front page, June 30): The Supreme Court decision on Thursday on the Guantánamo detainees was a victory for Americans who accept the inherent risks of living in a democracy.

President Bush and his administration may choose to selectively reject Congressional oversight, the Geneva Conventions and adhering to the rule of law under the guise of protecting the American people, but that approach comes perilously close to the definition of a dictatorship.

And at a time when promoting “free and democratic” societies around the world is at the top of our agenda, we mustn’t lose sight of what exactly those words mean.

Felicia Massarsky
Ocean Grove, N.J., June 30, 2006

•

To the Editor:

Before any of us instinctively rise to criticize the Supreme Court for being soft on terrorists based upon its decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, let us not overlook that the court stood up to protect us all.

The right to be present at our trial, the right to know what evidence the state presents against us, the right to be defended by counsel we choose and the right under the Geneva Conventions to benefit from “all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples,” which this decision preserves, belong to us all.

Our government has denied prisoners in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, these rights and could under many other circumstances deny them to any of us.

No war against anything justifies the denial of such essential rights.

Edwin S. Matthews Jr.
New York, June 30, 2006
The writer is counsel of record for 175 members of the British Parliament who filed a brief in Rasul v. George W. Bush supporting judicial review of the holding of prisoners by the United States government in Guantánamo.

•

To the Editor:

Re “A Victory for the Rule of Law” (editorial, June 30):

Perhaps the Supreme Court ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld marks the beginning of the end of executive branch aggrandizement at the expense of the co-equal legislative and judicial branches.

Carl Tobias
Richmond, Va., June 30, 2006
The writer is a professor of law at the University of Richmond.

• 

To the Editor:

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld represents not so much a “victory” for the rule of law as a reprieve.

The radical-right movement that now controls the executive and legislative branches of our government and has placed four “radicals in robes” on the highest court is bent on the destruction of the very constitutional democracy each had taken a solemn oath to defend.

The so-called war on terror has provided political cover for a raw assertion of unchecked executive power. The Fourth Estate, and The New York Times in particular, are under attack for exposing the administration’s lawless behavior.

Unlike Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, lawsuits brought in the wake of the president’s unlawful, warrantless National Security Agency domestic eavesdropping are endangered by the administration’s expansive assertions of the “state secrets privilege.”

The rule of law may well be just one Supreme Court appointment away from extinction.

Ernest A. Canning
Thousand Oaks, Calif., June 30, 2006
The writer is a lawyer.

•

To the Editor:

Re “Court’s Ruling Is Likely to Force Negotiations Over Presidential Power” (news analysis, June 30):

Now and then, the Bush administration tips its hand, revealing its underlying ideological presumptions.

In commenting on the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision, Bradford A. Berenson, a former associate White House counsel, marvels, “What is truly radical is the Supreme Court’s willingness to bend to world opinion.”

Exactly what, the world may ask Mr. Berenson, is so wrong with that?

Ron Hofer
Brookfield, Wis., June 30, 2006