Thoughts on the Guantanamo Bay ruling

Since I last wrote there has been more information about the US Supreme Court ruling on Guantanamo Bay. The best of the news was what became available on the first day I think. Since then it appears (based on reading of the news) that the decision of the court isn't as complete as those who want Guantanamo Bay closed down hoped (although it is still real progress). In the news I found the following three articles by the BBC to be very informative on the ruling:

• Court opens new front in War on Terror


• Drawn-out endgame for Guantanamo?


• Q&A: Court's Guantanamo verdict

I am coming across two themes. First, while the ruling makes clear that the system as it is currently run is illegal, it isn't clear on making the government do something to make the situation legal. It's both surprising and unsurprising. Canada hasn't always been so different, but it seems to me to be more definitive at when the rulings are done. For example after the Supreme Court of Ontario ruled on same sex marriages it became possible to have a same sex marriage in Ontario almost immediately. However, there were years of court cases that went before that, where gays and lesbians were fighting for the right not be discriminated against. The same situation occurred in abortion law in Canada. I think that the current ruling is similar in that it isn't the "final say" of the US Supreme Court, because not all of the 'finalities' have been challenged.

Also a part of the ruling seems to be concerned with what other laws were passed (and not passed) in Congress. Under this scenario, the court hasn't clearly ruled (completely) on the Guantanamo Bay issue because Congress could pass new laws and then the case would move back to the courts. It does seem clear that isn't going to result in the immediate closure of Guantanamo Bay and in the short term may result in some prisoners being kept there for longer (see above articles).

On the other hand the ruling is important. If it doesn't have an immediate impact on getting detainees out of Guantanamo Bay, it may have an impact on the laws in other countries. For example it talks about the (huge) problem of having trials where the accused doesn't know all of the evidence being used against them (and this does seem to be a big part of the ruling...From the bit I've been through and the news I'm reading). I must admit I haven't gotten far enough in to see if they say they would be OK in some circumstances...But what I have read makes it very clear that Bush hadn't made a good enough case for this type of trial. Canada is currently dealing with these issues regarding security certificates, and Britain is also dealing with it in it's own (somewhat different) way. It may at least give MPs in Canada and the UK pause for thought about the laws they have, and the laws they will make in the future. At least I would hope so.

I'm not finding the ruling all that hard to read and it is very interesting. I would suggest to people that if Guantanamo Bay and related issues interest you that you go and take a look at the actual ruling [pdf file]. Ironically the summary was the part I had trouble going through. I think it was put together so law students and lawyers know which part of the ruling to look to for which issues. So, skip the summary if it seems daunting (and I eventually gave up with reading all of the summary), and move into reading the actual ruling. I don't know all the related laws they are quoting, but you can get an idea of how a ruling is based and what might come, even if you don't know much of the earlier law, as the most important parts are usually explained. I've always found going to read actual important Supreme Court rulings (Canadian and American mostly) more informing than the news on issues I'm really interested in. On the other hand I can see why it would never be everyone's cup of tea. As I go through it I will be writing thoughts on the issue when I'm not blogging on other topics.P