Ask the Expert: Ken Gude on the Guantánamo Case

What does the Supreme Court's recent Boumediene v. Bush decision mean for detainees at Guantánamo?

The Supreme Court held that habeas corpus rights are constitutionally guaranteed to the detainees at Guantánamo. That means that now, for the first time, they will be able to contest the conditions of their confinement in a federal court. That rights can now be revoked unless Congress or the president invokes the suspension clause of the Constitution, which can only happen during an invasion or rebellion. So that means that for the first time, these detainees will be able to contest their confinement in front of a true, impartial judge.

Does this mean more lenient treatment for terrorists?

This isn't really about leniency or harshness. This is about fairness, which is one of the fundamental principles of the American system of government and our system of justice. For the first time these detainees will be able to challenge their detention before a true, impartial judge, rather than the schemes that were concocted by the Bush administration to either justify their continued detention, or convict them for war crimes.

What else does the United States need to do to restore the rule of law at Guantánamo?

Look, the fundamental thing about Guantánamo is that it was selected precisely because the Bush administration believed it was beyond the rule of law. There is simply no amount of reform that can take place at Guantánamo that will be able to overcome that original deficit. The only way to bring the rule of law back to U.S. detention policies is to close Guantánamo permanently, transfer the detainees that can be sent to other countries there, and bring those that remain back in to the United States to face trial or prosecution in either federal or military courts.