No other way to handle Guantanamo now

As Robert Redford pointed out in a recent interview on public TV, “Attorney General Eric Holder knows full well that in reversing his position on Guantanamo he and the Obama administration are yielding to a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution.”That is undoubtedly true. Nearly 400 years of legal precedent holds that the right of due process and the writ of habeas corpus (appeal to the courts of law to challenge detention) are inviolable, irrespective of whether the prisoner is held by the state at home or abroad.Such is the clear requirement of international treaty law, which, once ratified under the U.S. Constitution, becomes “the supreme law of the land” in the United States and in all signatory countries. There is no higher law. We cannot just make things up. Just because we label a person as an “enemy of the crown,” or as an “enemy of the state,” that action does not change the law.Of course, a “terrorist” or any person suspected of doing imminent criminal harm can be temporarily detained, while under investigation, to prevent that harm, pending adjudication under law. As the Obama administration has proposed, we would do well to better clarify and codify as necessary the conditions governing such legitimate detention.Arbitrary and indefinite detentions are not in the cards, and torture is utterly out of the question, as well as unconstitutional and immoral. To date, no one of rank has been investigated and prosecuted for torture at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo. A principal objection to military tribunals or commissions, as so far described, is that they do not provide the full basic constitutional rights of due process and they permit the introduction of tainted evidence coerced by torture. Unless they meet constitutional standards, such tribunals are unacceptable.President Obama and Attorney General Holder know where they stand on both the law and the morality of Bush-era detention. They promised to close Guantanamo. But they are stymied by a so-called conservative block in Congress from closing down Guantanamo and from transferring accused persons for trial in U.S. courts and possible conviction and incarceration in U.S. prisons. The Republican block in Congress has cut off all funding for closing Guantanamo. They have passed legislation blocking criminal trials here in the United States. So what can the administration do? In baseball jargon, this is a forced play at base. They have to try the accused somehow, somewhere; they have no real alternative. They do not really have the power of decision to do more than this at this time.The administration cannot even rely on the remedy of the courts, ultimately by appeal to a Supreme Court packed 5 to 4 by a block of like-minded conservative justices. Any court that can find in the U.S. Constitution a greater right of “person” and “free speech” for corporations (which are nowhere mentioned in the document) than for actual persons (repeatedly mentioned) can hardly be counted on to find due process and habeas corpus rights for ordinary persons who are detained at Guantanamo and suspected of acts of terrorism, of which they may or may not be guilty.When some Supreme Court justices themselves or their family members are seen engaging in fundraising or participating in extreme political activities, promoting deregulation, economic inequity and denial of social benefits, they can hardly be expected to put their ideological and political biases aside when reviewing cases, even those involving democracy and fundamental human rights.That is why we need new legislation requiring the Supreme Court justices to be bound by a code of ethics as other federal judges are. Connecticut’s U.S. Congressman Chris Murphy has introduced a bill to do precisely that. Such a bill probably cannot bypass the blockades in Congress and in the Supreme Court, at least not at this time, but it’s never bad to propose legislation simply because it’s right.Sharon resident Anthony Piel is a former director and general legal counsel of the World Health Organization.