When an imbalance of representible matter exists, the basis of the rule of law is jeopardized. What may be done in war is authorized by an intermediary party. A court may review claims by Guantanamo detainees based on alleigance neither to the targets nor the suspects of terrorism, but rather to institutions that are biased toward neither side. A court cannot accept reviewing detainees who have declared war on America, just as the detainees refuse to listen to every man, woman, and child in the United States. The court is not a legitimate place to hear the testimony of a sworn enemy, and state enemies are not welcome in state courts. What might give these detainees a place in the U.S. legal system, should we need it, is a change of name from "enemy combatant" to "terrorist." This strategy at once "brings the war home" to the United States's own legal system, and cancels out the notion that the United States is at war in the first place. This logical redundancy has manifested in the name of the newest government administrative body, the Department of Homeland Security.

The 1962 Supreme Court ruling in the case Gideon v. Wainwright provided precedent to provide legal counsel to defendents. A man charged with breaking and entering in Florida was not provided with legal representation for lack of financial resources, and the Supreme Court ruled that in order to uphold the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, courts should make arrangements to provide counsel to anyone in need. Anyone within the United States legal system is essentially representible. If the people of the United...

The Geneva laws of war were written to prevent world war, but they are not sophisticated enough to prevent mass paranoia and individualist hysteria. If accusations of human rights violations are valid in Guantanamo Bay, then domestic United States laws and international Geneva Convention laws are being volated. The United States is fully responsible for upholding the rule of law on its soil, and under Gideon v. Wainright these detainees deserve the right to representation.
The era of Congressionally approved war is seen by some as an archaic way of getting things done. However, the Constitution has provided Congress with the power of the purse and the authority to approve a Presidential appeal to war. Though this procedure has not been followed through since World War II, the list of executive branch wars is a string of failures. The legislative branch of the federal government has the constitutional responsibility to approve war and how much to budget out on it. Now that the executive branch has gone haywire in battling terrorism, the judicial branch must tidy up the mess in the Carribean Sea.

Works Cited

Byers, Michael. War Law: Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict. Grove Press: New York, 2005. Print.

The Oyez Project. "Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)." Accessed Monday, November…