Robert H. Bork and David B. Rivkin Jr. ["A War the Courts Shouldn't Manage," op-ed, Jan. 21] describe as disastrous a Supreme Court decision in which "aliens held at Guantanamo Bay, not a part of the United States or within the jurisdiction of any federal court, were held to have a right to a habeas petition."
Perhaps it would help to remember who is holding them: the U.S. government. The administration would prefer the freedom to act without being subject to judicial review -- hence the decision to detain people in Guantanamo, which in the absence of Rasul v. Bush would not be under the jurisdiction of any court.
President Bush made freedom from tyranny a central message of his inauguration speech. We would do well to support this freedom by ensuring that the actions of our own government are properly constrained by our own most fundamental legal principles.
DAVID BARTRAM
Reading, England
•
Robert H. Bork and David B. Rivkin Jr. argue that the judiciary should step aside and allow the Bush administration to trample rights in its prosecution of the "war on terror."
The case of Omar Abu Ali v. Ashcroft, cited by the authors, illustrates the serious implications of the judiciary abdicating its role as a check on executive power.
A U.S. citizen, Ahmed Abu Ali (Omar's son) has been detained without charge in Saudi Arabia since June 2003. His family filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that he is effectively in U.S. custody.
On Dec. 16, Judge John D. Bates, a Bush appointee, ruled that the family's allegations were "well-supported" and noted that the U.S. government had made no effort to refute them.
The ruling also stated: "The position advanced by the United States is sweeping. The authority sought would permit the executive, at his discretion, to deliver a United States citizen to a foreign country to avoid constitutional scrutiny, or, as is alleged and to some degree substantiated here, work through the intermediary of a foreign country to detain a United States citizen abroad. The Court concludes that a citizen cannot so easily be separated from his constitutional rights."
Without judicial intervention, what is to protect any of us who choose to travel, work, live or study abroad from suffering the fate of Ahmed Abu Ali?
BRIAN EVANS
Saudi Arabia Country Specialist
Amnesty International USA
Austin
