Substantial Commentary or Criticism 2

In the New York Times editorial Justice 5, Brutality 4 the author criticizes George Bush and the American Congress for allowing such glaring intrusions on the rights of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.
I agree with the author of the editorial that it is wrong the way George Bush and the American government deny humanity to the prisoners who are assigned to carry out their sentence in Guantanamo Bay. However, although I agree with the author's intentions I find that he or she makes several bad or flawed arguments throughout the editorial.
First, the author sites the constitutional law habeas corpus and says that rights can only be denied in a situation where there is danger to "public safety." Not that I disagree that these prisoners should be treated with humanity and basic rights, but this is a weak argument because I think most would agree that presumed terrorists are a threat to public safety. If there is any situation where it would be justified to strip someone of their rights to protect the public, dealing with a presumed terrorist is certainly at the top of the list. Therefore I find this aspect of the author's argument to be faulty.

The author also fails to take into consideration the difficulties in trying to apply the rules of the American Constitution to non American citizens. While I firmly believe something should be done to grant these prisoners rights, it is difficult to treat them and try them according to the American Constitution, because they are not American Citizens. Many of them are simply soldiers from Iraq/Afghanistan and they did not actually break any laws, but simply were serving according to their own countries laws. Thus how can we give them a speedy trial when they haven’t technically broken any American laws? In my opinion the author of this article fails to recognize or mention the difficulties incorporated with problems such as these.

In conclusion, I certainly agree with the author of this editorial’s viewpoint regarding the brutality prisoners in Guantanamo Bay face, however I do not agree with the arguments he or she uses to support her stance.