Gitmo prisoners released show the dangers of ruling

Have we gone insane? The recent Supreme Court 5-4 decision to grant habeas corpus rights to prisoners of war in Guantanamo and the editorial from the Kentucky Courier-Journal lauding it ("Court protects habeas corpus," What Others Are Saying, June 23) would indicate so.

First, the prisoners already have a laundry list of rights. Chief Justice John Roberts writes in his dissent, "They enjoy the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants." If so, was this decision more a politcal stab at President Bush than an attempt to confer to prisoners rights they already possess?

Second, this decision will force military attorneys to release evidence against enemy combatants to their own lawyers. Now, it seems, the U.S. military will have to spend inordinate amounts of time and effort in legal matters instead of engaging in efforts to do what it is created to do: defeat the enemy on the battlefront - duh!

Third, since the editorial lampoons Justice Scalia for saying the decision will "cause more Americans to be killed," I conclude by further quoting Scalia in hopes that readers will understand why he said this. In referring to the detainees already released from Gitmo, Scalia pointed out that one "masterminded the kidnapping of two Chinese dam workers, one of whom was later shot to death when used as a human shield against Pakistani commandoes." Another "promptly resumed his post as a senior Taliban commander and murdered a United Nations engineer and three Afghan soldiers ... Still another murdered an Afghan judge."

If this nonsense leads to the release of prisoners, do you think they'll pursue a life of generous and humanitarian works in appreciation of their freedom?