Gary V. Powell, Author

The conservatives are up in arms. The pundits are full of themselves. The liberals are telling each other "I told you so."

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in the landmark case of  Boumediene v Bush. The case involved the rights of an individual who was deemed an enemy combatant and held in the notorious Guatanamo Bay prison in Cuba. The Supreme Court, via a slim majority of an emerging coalition of Ginsberg, Kennedy, Souter, Stevens, and Breyer, ruled that prisoners held at Guantanamo have the right to challenge their imprisonment in the US Courts.

The conservatives believe it's the end of the world--how will we ever be able to combat terrorism if we can't lock up people suspected of terrorism, torture them, refuse them a hearing, and lock them away?

The pundits say it's a case that identifies this strange coalition on the Court, which pairs Reagan and Clinton appointees, actually a pretty conservative bunch, against right-wing nut jobs like Thomas and Alito, Scalia and Roberts.

Liberals say its a resounding defeat against the tyranny of the Bush Administration.

Justice Kennedy, the author of the opinion, had it right, though, when he said it's about something more fundamantal. It's about who we are as a nation.

The right of habeas corpus predates the current conflict with Muslim terrorists. It even predates the Constitution and our heralded balance of powers. The right of habeas corpus, upheld by the Court in  Boumediene v Bush, is a centuries old, fundamental right that allows the prisoner to challenge his imprisonment before an impartial forum. The right of habeas corpus evolved against a back drop of all powerful kings. Even in an era when the local strong man's right was unfettered, a prisoner could seek a hearing before an impartial tribunal to question the ruler. The sense of basic fairness underlying habeas corpus overrode even Medieval concepts of divine kings and blessed emperors.

Justice Kennedy's ruling in  Boumediene v Bush, while couched in all the usual legalese, and based largely on a "balance of powers" argument, is really about basic human fairness. Civilized societies, even marginally civilized societies, recognize that all powerful rulers may get it wrong sometimes and imprisoned should receive, at a minimum, a hearing. Justice Kennedy, at base, is saying that he believes (along with the other justices who concurred in his opinion) that we are a strong enough nation, a civil enough nation, a great enough nation, that we can endure the meagre challenge of the imprisoned at Guantanamo.

Justice Kennedy's ruling is, in effect, a question posed to the American people, much more than a resolute answer. His question is "what kind of people are we, anyway?" Are we barbarians, who lock people up without reflecting on why? Are we barbarians ,who torture people to obtain dubious information that we can hope to use against others? Are we barbarians ,who have so littler egard for the precious time a prisoner spends away from loved ones that we are willing to suspend their rights to due process?

God, I hope not.

Conservatives worry that the Court's ruling will glut the lower courts. That may be. Conservatives worry that some of the Guantanamo prisoners will be set free to terrorize us again. That may be. Conservatives worry that terrorists who have killed Americans will be set free. That may be.

This is the price of democracy. This is the price of the rule of law. This is the price of a civilized society.

Justice, civility, and hope triumphed in  Boumediene v Bush. The case has only a tangential relation to balance of powers, the unleashing of terrorism, or the defeat of the Bush Administration.

Justice Kennedy had the courage to stand up and ask "what kind of people are we, anyway." It's up to Americans to answer. It's more important than gas prices, presidential politcs, or red versus blue.

It's about whether we are barbarians or civilized people. It's about whether the rule of law or the rule of the jungle prevails.