Criminal Justice: Corrections the Objective Essay

" (Elsea, 2005) It was stated at the time that it would appear that "…that federal courts will play a role in determining whether the military commissions, established pursuant to President Bush's Military Order (M.O.) of November 13, 2001, are valid under U.S. constitutional and statutory law, and possibly under international law." (Elsea, 2005) It is reported that in June 2008, and in the case of Boumediene v. Bush that the U.S. Supreme Court "overturned the portions of the law" relating to habeas corpus and stated findings that the individuals held at Guantanamo Bay have "constitutional rights to challenge their detention in United States courts." (The New York Times, 2009)

III. Response of the Obama Administration

It is related that one of the first things that the administration of President Barack Obama accomplished was an executive order that closed Guantanamo and one that as well "issued an immediate halt to the military commission proceedings for prosecuting detainees…" (The New York Times, 2009) Furthermore, a request was filed in Federal District Court in Washington requesting that habeas corpus proceedings there by stayed.

IV. Analysis

One might understand why the rules and regulations of court proceedings in U.S. courts might not be applicable to those who have been accused of terrorist acts or terrorist plots against the American people however, the Geneva Conventions and International Laws relating to treatment of prisoners of war should be followed by the United States. The reason for this is because the United States has historically been instrumental in the formulation and development of such laws and regulations and for allowing the individual to be treated as presumed innocent until found guilty. It would seem ludicrous that the United States would desire to backtrack and effectively render the great expense and hard work put forth by previous advocators of human rights a waste.

Conclusion

While housing of criminals of war and terrorists with the general prison population might not be the most desirable corrections method at the same time the extremes to which have been demonstrated in treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo should not be the protocol adopted by the United States and not only on the principles of U.S. legal and procedural law but in terms of accepted international laws and regulations. If the United States does not abide by the Geneva Conventions then certainly the United States cannot expect other countries to abide by these conventions.

Bibliography

Elsea, Jennifer (2005) The Department of Defense Rules for Military Commissions: Analysis of Procedural Rules and Comparison with Proposed Legislation and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. CRS Report for Congress. 18 Jan 2005. Online available at; http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/crs/rl31600.pdf

Henning, Anna C. (2009) Analysis of Selected Legislative Proposals Addressing Guantanamo Detainees. 2- March 2009., CRS Report for Congress. Online available at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40419.pdf

Military Commissions (2008) The New York Times. 9 May 2009. Online available at: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/d/detainees/military_commissions/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier

Richey, Warren (2006) Supreme Court Rejects Military Tribunals. The Christian Science Monitor. 30 June 2006. Online available at: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0630/p01s01-usju.html

Stewart James G. (2004) Rethinking Guantanamo: Unlawful Confinement as Applied in International Criminal Law. Journal of International Criminal Justice 2006 4(1):12-30