Unlawful detention, instrument of tyranny

President George W. Bush and Congress violated one of the nation's fundamental values when they conspired to unlawfully — and endlessly — hold foreign terrorist suspects at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

The U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 decision Thursday was all about unlawful detention and the elemental right to challenge a president who puts people behind bars.The ruling goes to the heart of the high court's job description, serving as an arbiter of legal disputes but also as a referee that whistles a foul when the executive and legislative branches overstep constitutional separations of power.

The case is ostensibly about individuals captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan or suspected of terrorist plots, or involvement in the Sept. 11, 2001, attack. Justice Anthony Kennedy took the case back to the beginning, noting protections against unlawful restraint was one of the few safeguards of liberty specified in a Constitution that initially had no Bill of Rights.

A provision known as the Suspension Clause creates the opportunity for exceptions in extraordinary circumstances. The Bush White House and Republican Congress twice tried to block any chance for the detainees to challenge the U.S. government in court. They used laws to create a more restricted, limited process.

The Bush administration trotted out a variety of explanations, from geography to sovereignty over a prison site specifically picked because it was outside U.S. territory. The court rejected them all.

The court knocked down the legal arguments, and emphasized protection from arbitrary suspensions of the writ of habeas corpus was also meant to ensure a right of judicial inquiry and reinforce the separation of powers.

The court said real risks, practical considerations and exigent circumstances can influence how speedily the writ is applied, but obvious foot-dragging by the Bush administration was wholly unacceptable.

The court provided a basic, elemental statement of a legal value as old as the nation and the English law it drew upon.