Press Release

Guilty Until Proven Innocent…At President's Whim

(Washington, June 28, 2004) "Today the Supreme Court abdicated its responsibility to uphold the constitution," states Tony Hileman, Executive Director of the American Humanist Association. "In removing an important part of our system of checks and balances, the power of the executive branch of government has been inappropriately expanded."

The Court's ruling in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld leaves the president with the power to name anyone an "enemy combatant" and hold that person without charges or trial. According to the majority opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O' Connor, enemy combatants retain their right to an attorney, but only for the purpose of appealing their loss of habeas corpus and their designation as an enemy combatant. Even then, the accused must prove his or her innocence and the government is given the advantage-guilty until proven innocent. O'Connor further writes, "Hearsay, for example, may need to be accepted as the most reliable available evidence from the government on such a proceeding."

Fred Edwords, editor of the _Humanist_ magazine, responded, "It appears that when O'Connor said, 'We affirm today the fundamental nature of a citizen's right to be free from involuntary confinement,' her words were empty platitudes. The Court overlooked the severity of the harm done when potentially innocent citizens can be imprisoned until the 'end of hostilities', (perhaps indefinitely. considering the nature of the so-called war on terror) without a trial that truly addresses the merits of their crime."

Justices Antonin Scalia and John Paul Stevens rebutted the decision, arguing that foreigners might appropriately be designated enemy combatants but American citizens must be treated differently. "In defense of his position," responds Edwords, "Scalia writes that this decision goes against our constitutional tradition: 'The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive.'"

In a concurring opinion, Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg went further than Scalia, suggesting that the Executive has no right to detain Hamdi and suggests that even those who are not U.S. citizens should be granted greater freedoms. Souter referenced the Geneva Conventions' rules on prisoners of war, and the USA PATRIOT Act's limitation of detention to no more than seven days for alien terrorists. Souter adds, "There is reason to question whether the United States is acting in accordance with the laws of war it claims to follow."

The Court also decided today not to decide on the case against Jose Padilla, on which they heard oral arguments this past April, missing another chance to reinforce constitutional liberties.

Edwords concluded, "First, Congress abdicated responsibility by giving the president carte blanche to make war whenever and wherever he wished, now the Supreme Court abdicates its responsibility to protect individual liberties."

Press Room