July 10, 2006

Detainees Won't Get Trials In The US

According to Reuters, the Bush Administration announced today that, following a Supreme Court decision ruling the military commissions at Guantanamo were unconstitutional, it had no intention of bringing detainees to the United States to be tried in American courts. The Reuters piece adds that the administration has also said it believes the Supreme Court decision requires them to ask for Congressional approval for the commission process, and does not necessarily mandate that a new adjutication process be set in place.

June 29, 2006

Supreme Court Strikes Down Military Commissions

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Bush administration's "Special Military Commissions" to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are illegal.

The Supreme Court ruling in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld overturns an earlier decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit favorable to the administration. In this particular case, the defendant, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, had admitted to serving as Osama bin Laden's driver and was accused of conspiracy to commit war crimes. Hamdan's "hearing" was one of ten cases that had appeared before the Special Military Commissions. However, the Supreme Court judged that the basic principles of a fair trial would not apply under the current regime, and it invalidated the commissions.

One of the key elements of the Supreme Court's decision was that the rules of evidence were found to be inadequate. The judgment also built on an earlier Supreme Court ruling that the basic principles of habeas corpus applied, because the U.S. had effective authority over the Guantanamo facility. Therefore, Guantanamo detainees had the legal ability to contest their imprisonment in a federal court.

June 22, 2006

Hearing For Guantanamo Prisoners Delayed

A June 20thAssociated Press articlenotes that the U.S. military has suspended a pretrial hearing Monday at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base for a Canadian detainee accused of killing a U.S. Green Beret, thus further delaying the start of military tribunals at the base. A spokesperson for the Office Of Military Commissions said that security personnel at the base were focused on investigating the recent suicides of three detainees at the base, and the tribunals would begin when those investigations were concluded.

June 15, 2006

Bush Says Supreme Courts Have To Tell Him What To Do About Gitmo

A June 15 article in USA Today reported that in Bush's comments about Guantanamo the previous day -- as he faced continued international criticism in the wake of three suicides at the base -- the president suggested that he would turn to the Supreme Court for advice on how to deal with Guantanamo.

According to the article, Bush said he was awaiting a Supreme Court decision about how terrorism suspects there could be tried: "I'd like to close Guantanamo, but I also recognize that we're holding some people there that are darn dangerous and that we better have a plan to deal with them in our courts."

A previous plan for how to deal with Guantanamo detainees in the courts was put forward by the Supreme Court several in the summer of 2004. Perhaps Bush should consult the court docket.

June 14, 2006

Britain To Intercede on Hick's Behalf?

According to Reuters, the British government promised a judge on Wednesday it would consider this week whether to ask Washington to free an Australian prisoner in Guantanamo Bay who won the right to claim British citizenship.

David Hicks won the right to claim citizenship in the High Court in December because his mother was born in Britain. If Britain does get involved, things will seem more promising for Hick, who thus far has gotten no help from the Australian government. Britain has already secured the release of all nine British citizens who were held at the U.S. prison camp in Cuba.

May 28, 2006

Released Detainee Records Reveal That Many Were Juveniles When Arrested

According to an article in the Bristish paper The Independent, lawyers in London examined the prisoner records of Guantanamo detainees recently released by the Pentagon, and concluded that as many as 60 of the detainees were minors at the time of arrest: their imprisonment with adult terror suspects was thus a further violation of both international and US law.

British officials reported to the Independent that the UK had been assured that any juveniles would be held in a special facility for child detainees at Guantanamo called Camp Iguana. However, the US admits only threeinmates were ever treated as children - three young Afghans, one aged
13, who were released in 2004.

In response, the Pentagon noted that they are not currently holding any minors at Guantanamo Bay, since the men in question were arrested around four years before.

January 24, 2006

Pentagon Ordered to Release Detainee Identities

As The New York Times reports, in response to a 2005 lawsuit filed by The Associated Press, a federal judge has ordered the Pentagon to release the names and nationalities of hundreds of terror suspects picked up in the War on Terror and detained at the prison facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

In April 2005, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request granted the AP access to 2,000 pages of information related to the military tribunals held at Guantanamo. While the Pentagon did in fact release transcripts of 558 tribunals, prisoners' names were blacked out, and other identifying information was altered. As a result, the news agency contends it was only able to report anecdotally on the proceedings, which it maintained were "unquestionably of great interest to the public." The organization then filed a federal lawsuit against the DoD, asking the court for the release of all transcripts and documents related to the military hearings, as well as written statements and other documentation submitted by detainees.

The Pentagon must provide the AP with unredacted copies of the transcripts by January 30. As Reuters reports, the government has until tomorrow to ask the judge to suspend the order if an appeal is to be made.

Judge Jed Rakoff's ruling rejects the Pentagon's contention that privacy issues are the raison d'etre for witholding information. The government has maintained that prisoners' identities should not be disclosed to ensure the safety of detainees as well as their families, citing the threat of retailiation should terrorist groups become displeased by something a detainee reveals during his tribunal.

However, in a six-page order issued earlier this month, Judge Rakoff wrote, "The Department of Defense has failed on this motion to establish any cognizable privacy interest on the part of the detainees Accordingly, the defendant's summary judgment motion is denied," ABC News reports.

In August, the judge ordered the Defense Department to poll the 317 detainees who had undergone enemy combatant hearings to see whether they objected to having their names published. According to a January 4th ruling, the judge said there was not a significant number of detainees in opposition to such disclosure.

December 13, 2005

Pentagon Invites Human Rights Specialist to Guantanamo

The Pentagon announced it has extended an invitation to a representative for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to visit the detention facility at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station in Cuba.

As the DoD release explains, "Although department policy does not provide for such visits to military detention facilities, the department has determined on an exceptional basis to extend this invitation. The department strives for transparency in our operations to the extent possible in light of security and operational requirements and the need to ensure the safety of our forces."

According to the American Forces Press Service, Belgian politician and OSCE representative Anne-Marie Lizin accepted the DoD's invitation, and will be permitted to observe operations at the facilities at Guantanamo and ask questions of the command, staff and U.S. officials who would accompany her.

A DoD spokesman said he did not yet know when Lizin's visit would take place.

October 06, 2005

Senate Votes to Regulate Detention & Interrogation Policy

In an attempt to codify what many consider to be the military's conflicting policies and procedures for the interrogation and treatment of those under the detention, custody, or control of the U.S. Government, the Republican-controlled Senate yesterday overwhelmingly approved a measure that would ban the use of cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment of foreign enemies, The New York Times reports.

Contained within a $440 billion Defense Department spending bill, the measure was approved by a 90-9 vote. According to the Washington Times, the nine Republican senators who voted against the proposal were Wayne Allard of Colorado, Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, John Cornyn of Texas, James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, Pat Roberts of Kansas, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, and Ted Stevens of Alaska. New Jersey Democrat Jon Corzine was the only senator not to vote.

As quoted by the Associated Press, Senator Stevens of Alaska opined, "This is a different war now... We're in a war against terrorists, and I don't think they're entitled to the same type of treatment that we give to prisoners of war."

Despite such sentiment, the anti-torture legislation has attracted broad, non-partisan support. Vietnam War P.O.W. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) - himself the victim of torture - is the bill's primary sponsor. As the International Herald Tribune reports, over two dozen retired senior military officers - including John Shalikashvili and Colin Powell, both former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - have also endorsed measures that ensure detainees are treated humanely.

In a letter read by Senator McCain on the Senate floor, former Bush White House Secretary of State Colin Powell expressed, "The world will note that America is making a clear statement with respect to the expected future behavior of our soldiers... Such a reaction will help deal with the terrible public diplomacy crisis created by Abu Ghraib," the Associated Press reports.

The following - taken from a press release posted to his website - is an excerpt of Senator McCain's statement to the Senate:

"This amendment would (1) establish the Army Field Manual as the uniform standard for the interrogation of Department of Defense detainees and (2) prohibit cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of persons in the detention of the U.S. government.

Mr. President, to fight terrorism we need intelligence. That much is obvious. What should also be obvious is that the intelligence we collect must be reliable and acquired humanely, under clear standards understood by all our fighting men and women. To do differently would not only offend our values as Americans, but undermine our war effort, because abuse of prisoners harms -- not helps --us in the war on terror.

First, subjecting prisoners to abuse leads to bad intelligence, because under torture a detainee will tell his interrogator anything to make the pain stop.

Second, mistreatment of our prisoners endangers U.S. troops who might be captured by the enemy -- if not in this war, then in the next. And third, prisoner abuses exact on us a terrible toll in the war of ideas, because inevitably these abuses become public. When they do, the cruel actions of a few darken the reputation of our country in the eyes of millions. American values should win against all others in any war of ideas, and we can't let prisoner abuse tarnish our image.

And yet reports of detainee abuse continue to emerge, in large part, I believe, because of confusion in the field as to what is permitted and what is not. The amendment I am proposing will go a long way toward clearing up this confusion."

As the Washington Post reported back in July, the Bush Administration has tried to quell what it views to be an incipient Republican rebellion. Lobbying to block such legislation, the White House maintains it would restrict the President's authority "to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bring terrorists to justice."

The Senate is expected to vote on the overall spending bill by the end of the week.

In his daily press briefing, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the President will most likely veto the defense budget if the amendment remains part of the spending bill.

"We have put out a Statement of Administration Policy saying that his advisors would recommend that he vetoes it if it contains such language."

September 01, 2005

Critics Respond: Revisions to Commission Procedures Cosmetic; Fundamental Flaws Remain

Despite the Pentagon's latest announcement that it is changing military commission procedures, extending additional rights to terror suspects, some of the commission's earliest and staunchest critics maintain the changes are trivial, submitting the process to try Guantanamo detainees remains unfair and inherently flawed.

In a press release posted to its website, Human Rights Watch expressed concern that military commissions will continue to function entirely within the military and executive branch, in the absence of independent judicial review.

"The new rules are aimed to deflect criticism of the commissions, but fail to address their most fundamental problems. Without review by civilian courts, there is no means of ensuring that any fair trial rules are in fact respected," said Jamie Fellner, the organization's U.S. program director.

Fellner continued, "Those responsible for war crimes should be tried by real courts using real rules, not commissions created from scratch."

Amnesty International reiterated HRW's contention that many of the commission's problems remained, specifically, allowing the admission of evidence obtained through torture or hearsay, a violation of Article 15 of the Convention Against Torture.

"If the U.S. government really wanted to provide full and fair trials, the defendants would be tried in an established system of justice such as U.S. federal court or in a court martial. By insisting on going forward with these ill-conceived commissions, the administration is confirming its desire to apply sub-standard justice to foreign nationals. The announced rule changes to the military commissions amount to little more than hanging curtains on a condemned house and marketing it as renovated," said Jumana Musa, Amnesty International's observer to the military commissions.

Also weighing in on the Pentagon's announcement was the U.S. military-appointed counsel for Australian terror suspect David Hicks, who told Australia's The Age the changes were "meaningless" and a "publicity stunt."

"There are no changes at all," said Major Michael Mori.

"This is totally cosmetic. It's totally for show. It's because they realise that no one in the world accepts it as a fair system and are desperate to convince somebody.

"You can slap a new coat of paint on the outside of a house with broken foundations, but it doesn't fix the problem."

August 30, 2005

Judge Requires Detainee Approval Before Identities Made Public

Yesterday in federal court, a judge ruled that Guantanamo detainees must provide consent prior to the disclosure of their identities.

As the Associated Press reports, District Judge Jed S. Rakoff instructed the government to draft a one-page document asking detainees at the U.S. run prison facility in Cuba if they want their personal information released to the news media. Back in April, a FOIA request granted the AP access to 2,000 pages of information related to the tribunals. In those documents, prisoner's names were blacked out, and other identifying information was altered. As a result, the AP contends it was only able to report anecdotally on the proceedings, which it maintains are "unquestionably of great interest to the public." The AP then filed a federal lawsuit against the DoD, asking the court for the release of all transcripts and documents related to the military hearings, as well as written statements and other documentation submitted by detainees.

Citing privacy concerns, DoD maintains that identities should be kept secret to ensure not only the safety of detainees, but the safety of their families as well, who they argue are at risk should terrorist groups become displeased by something a detainee reveals during his tribunal.

July 16, 2005

Fed. Appeals Court Upholds Use of Military Tribunals at Guantanamo

Ruling unanimously that military commissions established to try enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo do not violate the Constitution, international law or American military law, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has allowed war crime trials to resume at the U.S. run prison facility in Cuba, The New York Times reports.

Back in November, a federal judge in Washington ruled unfair and unlawful - and immediately halted - the military commission of Osama bin Laden’s former driver and alleged terrorist Salim Ahmed Hamdan. The 34-year old Yemeni was to be the first detainee to be tried as a war criminal by the newly constituted military commissions at Guantanamo. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 04-CV-1519, Judge James Robertson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia declared President Bush “had both overstepped his constitutional bounds and improperly brushed aside the Geneva Conventions in establishing military commissions to try detainees at the United States naval base here as war criminals."

According to the 45-page memorandum opinion, Judge Robertson found that the administration contravened Geneva Convention guidelines, disregarding a basic provision which requires the United States to treat Hamdan as a prisoner of war (P.O.W.), unless he appears before a special tribunal described in Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention that determines he is otherwise.

Yesterday’s decision, handed down by a three-judge panel, is a victory for the White House. The Bush administration contends that Hamdan and other suspected terrorists designated as “enemy combatants” are not entitled to P.O.W status and as such, do not merit protections conferred by the Geneva Conventions - which governs the treatment of civilians and soldiers in wartime - because al Qaeda did not sign the treaty.

Responding to the ruling Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales commented, "The president's authority under the laws of our nation to try enemy combatants is a vital part of the global war on terror...and today's decision reaffirms this critical authority."

Hamdan's attorney, Georgetown University law professor Neal K. Katyal said he would consider an appeal.

April 07, 2005

White House Wants Ruling on Detainee Rights Reversed

In federal appeals court today, the Justice Department defended the Bush Administration’s prosecution of foreign terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, and sought to overturn a federal ruling that deems unlawful military commission trials that do not afford foreign terror suspects the same legal protections as Americans, The New York Times reports.

Representing the government, assistant attorney general Peter D. Keisler said the trials that were halted “send a message that if you commit terrible crimes, we will capture you, we will give you a fair trial, and if you're convicted, we will impose a just sentence,” reports the Chicago Tribune.

Back in November, a U.S. District Judge ruled unfair and unlawful - and immediately halted - the military commission of Osama bin Laden’s former driver and alleged terrorist Salim Ahmed Hamdan. The Yemeni was to be the first detainee to be tried by a special military commission. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 04-CV-1519, Judge James Robertson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia declared President Bush “had both overstepped his constitutional bounds and improperly brushed aside the Geneva Conventions in establishing military commissions to try detainees at the United States naval base here as war criminals.”

According to the 45-page memorandum opinion, Judge Robertson found that the administration contravened Geneva Convention guidelines, disregarding a basic provision which requires the United States to treat Hamdan as a prisoner of war (P.O.W.), unless he appears before a special tribunal described in Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention that determines he is otherwise.

The Bush administration contends that Hamdan and other suspected terrorists designated as “enemy combatants” are not entitled to P.O.W status and do not merit protections conferred by the Geneva Conventions - which governs the treatment of civilians and soldiers in wartime - because al Qaeda did not sign the treaty.

Among the points of contention: in military commission cases, the government cites national security concerns for classifying evidence. While legal counsel has access to this information, it may nevertheless be withheld from the defendant. Also, a defendant need not be present for all parts of the military commission trial.

“It makes no sense to say that we adhere to international law and the first thing we do at the beginning of a trial is violate a canon of international law,” said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, Hamdan’s Pentagon-appointed attorney.

“This is the law in Rwanda,” but not in the United States, Swift retorted.

Out of approximately 550 detainees at Guantanamo, 15 have been designated for military commission trials. Only four have been charged.

March 31, 2005

ACLU: Declassified Memo Suggests Abuse Sanctioned by Top Brass

In a statement posted to its website, the American Civil Liberties Union contends that a recently declassified 2003 Army memo signed by Lt. Gen. Ricardo A. Sanchez - commander of U.S. ground forces from June 2003 to July 2004 - raises concerns that Sanchez perjured himself during his May 19th testimony to Congress on Iraq prison abuse, during which he denied authorizing highly coercive interrogation methods in violation of both the Geneva Conventions and Army standards.

An excerpt from the ACLU statement:

"The memorandum, dated September 14, 2003, was signed by Lt. Gen. Sanchez and laid out specific interrogation techniques, modeled on those used against detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for use by coalition forces in Iraq. These include sleep "management," the inducement of fear at two levels of severity, loud music and sensory agitation, and the use of canine units to "exploit [the] Arab fear of dogs."

During sworn testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Lt. Gen. Sanchez flatly denied approving any such techniques in Iraq, and said that a news article reporting otherwise was false.

Specifically, Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) asked Sanchez, "today's USA Today, sir, reported that you ordered or approved the use of sleep deprivation, intimidation by guard dogs, excessive noise and inducing fear as an interrogation method for a prisoner in Abu Ghraib prison." To which Sanchez replied, using the acronym for Coalition Joint Task Force-7, "Sir, that may be correct that it's in a news article, but I never approved any of those measures to be used within CJTF-7 at any time in the last year."

"We deserve to know if our military commanders are being honest when reporting to Congress and the American people what's been done in our country's name," said Christopher E. Anders, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "The attorney general clearly has to bring us those answers by appointing an independent investigator, and possible perjury is a good place to start."

As such, the ACLU submitted a request to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales asking him to open an investigation into Sanchez's possible perjury.

As Stars and Stripes reports, Pentagon officials defend the general, as Defense Department spokesman Lt. Col. John Skinner offered, "There have now been 10 major lines of inquiry, to include one done by an independent panel, that have found there was no policy that condoned or encouraged abuse of any type."

January 31, 2005

District Judge: Pentagon Fails to Provide Due Process for GITMO Detainees

Rejecting the Bush administration’s request to dismiss lawsuits filed on behalf of 54 foreign-born terror suspects protesting their detentions at Guantanamo, a district judge ruled today that the U.S. government has improperly prevented non-U.S. citizens picked up during the "War on Terror" from contesting their imprisonments, deeming the Pentagon's procedure to determine whether they are in fact “enemy combatants” fundamentally unfair and unconstitutional.

By failing to satisfy several due process requirements, U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens-Green found the Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs) violate the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and in some cases, the Geneva Convention treaties on treatment of prisoners of war.

Judge Hens-Green noted that because the men distinguished as “enemy combatants” are not provided legal counsel, and because the government withholds some evidence as classified, detainees at Guantanamo do not have access to all the pertinent material that might buttress their cases.

As The New York Times and Washington Times report, Judge Hens-Green ruled that under June's Supreme Court decision, the detainees were entitled to challenge the basis for their detentions, despite the executive branch’s entrenched arguments to the contrary.

“Although this nation unquestionably must take strong action under the leadership of the commander in chief to protect itself against enormous and unprecedented threats, that necessity cannot negate the existence of the most basic fundamental rights for which the people of this country have fought and died for well over 200 years,” Judge Hens-Green noted.

Judge Hens-Green found the military greatly depended on detainee confessions in their determination of whether they are correctly identified as “enemy combatants.” As the Washington Post explains, the judge called into question the efficacy of such confessions because of allegations and evidence of abusive conditions during the interrogation process.

Despite the latest ruling, the Bush Administration remains steadfast in its position that the CSRTs are in fact, constitutional. During today’s White House press briefing, spokesman Scott McClellan stated, “we respectfully disagree with the decision. The Department of Justice will be looking at what the appropriate next steps are to take in this matter, so they'll be reviewing the matter.”

To be sure, Judge Hens-Green said nothing in her opinion “should be interpreted to require the immediate release of any detainee.” Nevertheless, she said the present system - deemed by many of its critics to have been hastily set up by the Pentagon - and in which a detainee who has not yet been charged with a specific crime could in fact be held in captivity longer than a criminal defendant who has been tried and convicted - can not continue without substantial changes.

As could be expected, civil liberties groups celebrated the latest ruling. In a statement posted to its website, Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) President Michael Ratner commented,

“Judge Green’s decision is extraordinary. It reaffirms that the Guantánamo detainees cannot be imprisoned outside the law, that they have a constitutional right to a fair hearing and that evidence resulting from torture and coercion cannot be used to continue their imprisonments. The judge also found that it was illegal for the President to unilaterally determine that an entire group of the Guantánamo prisoners were not POW’s protected by the Geneva conventions. This ruling has the potential to bring the U.S. back into the fold of nations under law. It is about time.”

Judge Hens-Green’s decision conflicts with an earlier ruling. On January 19th, Judge Richard J. Leon - a Bush appointee - threw out 7 suspected terrorists’ requests for court review of their detention. Judge Leon said he found “no viable legal theory exists”' for a court to order the detainees’ release.

Legal experts expect the issue to be resolved either by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia or possibly, the Supreme Court.

November 13, 2004

White House Appeals Ruling on Hamdan Case

In a 2-page notice filed by the Justice Department, the White House presented its intention to appeal U.S. District Judge James Robertson’s November 8th ruling, which deemed unlawful the military tribunal trial of a Guantanamo detainee alleged to be an al Qaeda terrorist. No hearing date has been set, the Associated Press reports.

The case of 34 year-old Yemeni Salim Ahmed Hamdan - who was scheduled to be tried as a war criminal by the newly constituted Military Commissions at Guantanamo - was declared by Judge Robertson to be unlawful, and ordered not to continue until special hearings are held to determine whether the detainee should be afforded prisoner of war (P.O.W.) protection under the Geneva Conventions.

While Monday’s ruling contends the Bush Administration exceeded its constitutional authority and contravened the Geneva Conventions, the White House maintains its legal position that suspected al Qaeda and Taliban members picked up during the “War on Terror” were not acting on behalf of a legitimate government and as such, are not protected by the Geneva Conventions.

In Judge Robertson's Memorandum Opinion the former Navy officer cited "procedural problems with the Commission's rules," and ruled the Combatant Status Review Tribunals - comprised of a panel of military officers - were not equipped to decide whether detainees should be held or released. The ruling underscores how the legal position maintained by the Bush Administration is unprecedented, submitting

"The Government has asserted a position starkly different from the positions and behavior of the United States in previous conflicts, one that can only weaken the United States' own ability to demand application of the Geneva Conventions to Americans captured during armed conflicts abroad."

As The New York Times reports, departing Attorney General John Ashcroft decried Judge Robertson’s ruling.

“These encroachments include some of the most fundamental aspects of the president's conduct of the war on terrorism.”

Ashcroft continued, “The danger I see here is that intrusive judicial oversight and second-guessing of presidential determinations in these critical areas can put at risk the very security of our nation in a time of war.”

November 09, 2004

U.S. Judge Halts Guantanamo Tribunal, Ruled Unlawful

Five months after the Supreme Court ruled that foreign “enemy combatants” held at Guantanamo may challenge their detentions in civilian courts - rejecting the Bush administration’s contention that the military possessed sole authority over their legal fate - the pre-trial motion hearing for a terror suspect has been halted indefinitely by a federal judge, declaring invalid the military commission proceedings convened at Guantanamo to try suspected al Qaeda and Taliban fighters captured during the U.S.-led “War on Terror.”

As The New York Times reports, Judge James Robertson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued the landmark decision yesterday. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 04-CV-1519, the judge ruled President Bush “had both overstepped his constitutional bounds and improperly brushed aside the Geneva Conventions in establishing military commissions to try detainees at the United States naval base here as war criminals.”

According to the 45-page memorandum opinion, the judge ruled that the Bush administration contravened Geneva Convention guidelines, ignoring a basic provision which requires the U.S. to treat Osama bin Laden’s former driver and alleged terrorist Salim Ahmed Hamdan, as a prisoner of war (P.O.W.), unless he appears before a special tribunal described in Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention that determines he is not.

At the end of the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, the U.S. military did not conduct Article 5 tribunals, deeming them unnecessary. Government lawyers contended the president had already used his authority to label members of al Qaeda “unlawful combatants” who would be deprived of P.O.W. status and as such, would be out of reach of Geneva Conventions.

Picked up in Afghanistan in 2001 and detained ever since, Hamdan - a 34 year-old Yemeni - is one of approximately 63 Guantanamo detainees on whose behalf lawsuits have been filed in federal court, challenging their detentions. The lawsuits consist of habeas corpus petitions demanding that the government provide some explanation as to why they are imprisoned.

According to The Washington Post, yesterday’s ruling suggests detainees are to be viewed as P.O.W.s and should thus be entitled to the protections of international law, as well as be allowed a hearing on whether they qualify for those protections. Those arrested in or around Afghanistan in 2001, according to the ruling, must be treated as P.O.W.s should there exist any doubt as to their status.

The federal judge’s ruling coincided with – and abruptly halted - yesterday’s proceeding at Guantanamo. When presiding officer Col. Peter S. Brownback III received a note from a Marine sergeant, he immediately called a recess and rushed from the room. Upon his return he announced that the proceeding was in recess indefinitely.

Georgetown law professor and Hamden’s lead attorney Neal K. Katyal – who earlier this year in Slate characterized the ad hoc tribunals at Guantanamo as a “rush to create the fig leaf of justice” - told the confused courtroom audience “We won.”

The ruling is a major setback for the Bush Administration, which as the Boston Globe reports, vows to seek an emergency stay and a quick appeal. “By conferring protected legal status under the Geneva Conventions on members of Al Qaeda, the judge has put terrorism on the same legal footing as legitimate methods of waging war,” said Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo.

“The process struck down by the district court today was carefully crafted to protect America from terrorists while affording those charged with violations of the laws of war with fair process, and the department will make every effort to have this process restored through appeal.”

“By conferring protected legal status under the Geneva Conventions on members of Al Qaeda, the judge has put terrorism on the same legal footing as legitimate methods of waging war,” he said.

In contrast, Monday’s ruling comes as a victory to those human and military rights advocates who have long assailed the arbitrary proceedings as a moral and legal outrage, and who have dismissed the commissions - perceived as unconstitutional and inconsistent with military law - as “fatally flawed.”

In a statement posted to its website, ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero expressed, “Today’s decision sends a clear message that the fight against terrorism does not give the government license to disregard domestic and international law.”

“As we have said all along, our own soldiers will have to suffer the consequences if the United States denies prisoner-of-war protection under the Geneva Conventions. We are gratified that the court has recognized this important legal and moral principle.”

October 22, 2004

Three panelists dismissed from hearing Guantanamo cases

The Associated Press reports that the retired Army general overseeing the trials of at least four alleged supporters of Al Qaeda at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has dismissed three of the six officers who would pass judgment in those cases, after defense lawyers claimed potential bias.

The trials, called commissions by the military, will go ahead on schedule, the Pentagon said in a statement yesterday.

Because they need at least three panel members, proceedings will move on for Australian David Hicks and Yemeni Salim Ahmed Salim Hamdan on Nov. 1. Hicks is accused of fighting alongside the Taliban. Hamdan is accused of being one of Osama bin Laden's drivers.

October 21, 2004

Detainees Win Right To See Lawyers Alone

According to the Associated Press, a federal judge has ruled that terror suspects held by U.S. authorities at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba must be allowed to meet with lawyers and that their conversations cannot be monitored.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said in her ruling on Wednesday that administration ``attempts to erode this bedrock principle'' of attorney-client privacy were backed by ``a flimsy assemblage'' of arguments.

``They have been detained virtually incommunicado for nearly three years without being charged with any crime. To say that (detainees') ability to investigate the circumstances surrounding their capture and detention is `seriously impaired' is an understatement,'' she wrote.

She also said it was impossible for the men ``to grapple with the complexities of a foreign legal system and present their claims to this court'' without attorneys, access to a law library and fluency in English.

``We are reviewing the decision,'' Justice Department spokesman John Nowacki said late Wednesday.

October 14, 2004

Lawyers For Detainees Accuse US of Ignoring SC Decision

The VOA reports that lawyers representing some of the more than 500 detainees being held without charge by the U.S. military in the war on terror were in court in Washington Wednesday, October 13, arguing that the government continues to hold their clients without justification.

At the court hearing were 12 attorneys who are representing more than 60 detainees being held at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo, Bay Cuba. Among them was Brent Mickum, who represents three enemy combatants taken into custody in the West African nation of Gambia and now being held at Guantanamo.

"My clients again were arrested in Africa on a business trip and have been jailed for two years," he said. "I mean there just is no way legally that they can be enemy combatants and that's an issue that hasn't even been addressed yet."

A lawyer representing the Justice Department promised to provide the court with facts justifying the detentions by next week. Dozens of legal petitions have been filed on behalf of Guantanamo detainees, including some who have been held for nearly three years.

September 13, 2004

Latest Hersh Book Alleges Administration Knew of Detainee Abuses

The New York Times reports that in his latest book "Chain of Command: The Road From 9/11 to Abu Ghraib" (HarperCollins), author and investigative journalist Seymour Hersh asserts that senior White House officials failed to heed repeated warnings of detainee abuse at U.S.-run detention facilities in Iraq and Cuba.

Specifically, Hersh writes that a C.I.A. analyst who visited Guantanamo in 2002 filed a report documenting abuses, drawing the attention of a deputy to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. In a Chapter Excerpt posted to the publisher’s website, Hersh explains that upon receipt of the "devastating findings" Dr. Rice’s deputy, retired four-star General John A. Gordon

"…was deeply troubled and distressed by the analyst's report, and by its implications for the treatment, in retaliation, of captured American soldiers. Gordon, according to a former Administration official, told colleagues that he thought "it was totally out of character with the American value system," and "that if the actions at Guantánamo ever became public, it'd be damaging to the President." The issue was not only direct torture, but the Administration's obligations under federal law and under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, ratified by the United States in 1994, that barred torture as well as other "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." The C.I.A. analyst's report, in Gordon's view, provided clear evidence of degrading treatment. Things in Cuba were getting out of control."

Yet as The Times article reports, Hersh’s book contends that once the matter was brought to the National Security Advisor's attention, and it was discussed with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, “no significant change resulted.”

In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Dr. Rice denied Hersh’s allegations, averring

“In the fall of 2002, we were made aware that there were some concerns that people might have been held at Guantanamo who didn’t meet the definition of unlawful combatant. There were also early on some concerns about conditions of overcrowding. But nothing that suggested, to my recollection, that there were abuses, anything -- abuses going on at Guantanamo, and certainly nothing that would suggest the kind of thing that went on in Abu Ghraib. What we did when we learned that there might be people who were being held there who didn’t meet the standard is that we went back, we looked at the cases, we put together a process to try and make sure that the right people were being held. So we have worked hard on Guantanamo to improve conditions there, to make sure that the right people are being held. But no, I do not recall being told of anything concerning prisoner abuse.”

Hersh - who won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting of Vietnam’s My Lai massacre - authored a series of exposes for The New Yorker including “Torture at Abu Ghraib” , "Chain of Command" and “The Gray Zone,” describing in vivid detail the abuse of Iraqi detainees by U.S. Military Police at Abu Ghraib. He accuses the Pentagon of implementing a “secret system” to seize and interrogate terrorist leaders. Such furtive system of detention and interrogation Hersh claims, paved the way for prisoner abuses.

In anticipation of Hersh's latest book - released today - the Defense Department issued a statement decrying the “numerous unsubstantiated allegations and inaccuracies which he has made in the past based upon unnamed sources.“ The Pentagon then added “If any of Mr. Hersh’s anonymous sources wish to come forward and offer evidence to the contrary, the department welcomes them to do so.”

August 31, 2004

UK Detainees Among the First at Guantanamo to Meet with Civilian Lawyers

Two months after the Supreme Court ruled detainees held at Guantanamo could challenge their detentions in U.S. court, the government has begun issuing clearances for civilian attorneys to travel to Cuba to meet with detainees to contest the legality of their capture and confinement.

For the first time during their two-year captivity Feroz Abbasi, 23, Moazzam Begg, 36, Richard Belmar, 23, and Martin Mubanga, 31 - the four remaining Britons detained at Guantanamo and held without charge or trial - will have access to legal counsel, Reuters reports.

Pentagon spokesman Major Michael Shavers said Gitanjali Gutierrez, Brent Mickum and Joseph Margulies were the first three civilian lawyers approved for travel to Guantanamo. Gutierrez met with Abbasi and Begg this past Sunday to begin preparation of habeas corpus petitions which she hoped could secure the Britons' eventual releases.

The Guardian reports that the Pentagon has imposed strict conditions on the civilian attorneys. Of those Gutierrez deems “unacceptable” are reading the notes made by the attorneys regarding their meetings with their clients, as well as monitoring correspondence between the attorneys and their clients.

One of the major challenges Gutierrez says she faces is conveying to her clients her commitment to their cases. “It's going to take a great deal of time to get their trust. They’ve been held in isolation for a year, and have only had contact with military interrogators and UK officials, some of whom have taken part in the interrogations.”

Moreover Gutierrez explains, she and other civilian attorneys are restricted from reporting the details of their visits to the detainees’ families, nor are they allowed to convey messages from the families to the detainees. In an impassioned expression, Moazzam Begg’s father - who has tirelessly campaigned for his son’s release - said, “I won’t be able to ask anything about the visit by the lawyer or pass on any kind of message to my son. For almost three years he has not been able to speak to anyone and I’m worried about the effect it is having on him.”

Denied human contact, Begg has been held in isolation in a windowless room for up to a year. It has been reported that Begg and Abbasi have both suffered from mental health issues since their confinement.

The other two civilian attorneys - Brent Mickum and Joseph Margulies from the DC-based law firm Keller & Heckman - were scheduled to meet with Richard Belmar, 23, and Martin Mubanga, 29, but the meetings were postponed. As Reuters reports, the lawyers declined to make the trip to Guantanamo because of what they called “onerous last-minute conditions imposed by the Bush administration.”

As the BBC reports, while the arrival of lawyers at Guantanamo is perceived to be a breakthrough for legal and human rights campaigners, it remains unsatisfactory to some. In particular, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights Michael Ratner questions the governments ostensible “act of generosity,” offering, “We finally, after almost 1,000 days... are getting our first attorneys down to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,” he said. “(But) everything she learns will be automatically, essentially, classified. She will be unable to say anything to anybody. She won't even be able to tell Mr. Begg the condition of his son.”

Five other Britons who spent up to two years at Guantanamo Bay were repatriated in March and were subsequently freed without charge.

August 29, 2004

Preliminary Hearings at Guantanamo: The Week in Review

Pre-trial hearings were held last week at Guantanamo for four men the Pentagon deems enemy combatants in the U.S.-led war on terror. An Australian, two Yemenis and a Sudanese have been held at the U.S. naval base since their capture by U.S. forces at the end of "Operation Enduring Freedom" in Afghanistan. Of the nearly 600 detainees held at Guantanamo, 15 have become eligible for trial by military commission for violations of the law of war.

The detainees appeared before a five member tribunal comprised of senior military officers; prosecution and defense attorneys present were also members of the U.S. armed forces. The hearings mark the beginning of what will be the first U.S. military tribunals since World War II.

The first prisoner formally charged with committing war crimes was 34 year-old Yemeni Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s driver. Hamden denied the charge of conspiracy to commit violations of the law of war. His military-appointed attorney Navy Lieutenant Commander Charlie Swift questioned the suitability of four members of the panel judging him, contending they had personal connections with the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent "war on terror" and as such, would be prone to partiality. After conferring with his client Commander Swift requested a continuance. When the presiding judge Colonel Peter Brownback asked for a plea, the defendant exercised his right not to enter one at that time.

The next detainee to be arraigned was 29 year-old Australian David Hicks, a former cowboy and Muslim convert who fought alongside Islamic groups in Europe and Asia. Hicks was accused of conspiracy, attempted murder by an unprivileged belligerent, and aiding the enemy. Hicks plead "not guilty" to all charges. As did Hamdan’s attorney, Hicks’ counsel Marine Major Michael Mori challenged the qualifications of the commissioners on the tribunal. Motions hearings are scheduled for November 2nd, and Hicks will be tried before a U.S. military commission on January 10th. If convicted, Hicks could be sentenced to life in prison.

The third commission hearing was the most chaotic of the four proceedings. 36 year-old Yemeni Ali Hamza Ahmed Sulayman al-Bahlul was an al Qaeda public relations man who made videotapes exalting the 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, and was charged with conspiracy to commit war crimes. Unlike Hamdan and Hicks, al-Bahlul did not accept military-appointed defense attorneys, and instead expressed a desire to represent himself, telling the tribunal, "If the American system will not allow me to defend myself, then I will be forced to attend and I will be a listener only." When his request was denied, he then asked to have a Yemeni attorney defend him. Al-Bahlul’s follow-on request was also denied. As explained in a Department of Defense Press Release, as per Military Commission Order Number One, neither detainees – nor foreign legal counsel – are permitted to attend sessions where classified information is discussed.

Nevertheless, Army Colonel Robert Swann, the tribunal's chief prosecutor, later commented that the Pentagon may reconsider allowing a defendant to act as his own attorney.

Through his translator the defendant confessed to being a member of al Qaeda, offering, "I testify that ... nobody has put me under pressure…I am from al-Qaeda, and the relationship between me and Sept. 11..." reports USA Today. Out of concern that al-Bahlul’s statement - which was not made under oath - would be inadmissible as evidence, Colonel Brownback ordered him to stop mid-sentence, concerned tribunal rules do not allow for the use of a defendant's self-incriminating statements. Colonel Brownback said al-Bahlul could appeal to change the procedure. The hearing was then adjourned, without setting a date for continuance.

The last of the four detainees to face pre-trial hearings was Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud al-Qosi, a 44 year-old Sudanese accountant and bodyguard for Osama bin Laden accused of conspiracy to commit terrorism and murder. His defense counsel Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Sharon Shaffer said that because of a proposed job change, she was ill-prepared to defend her client. As such, al-Qosi’s trial date is tentatively scheduled for early December.

As Voice of America reports, after the hearing Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer told reporters the Pentagon denied her the resources needed to mount an effective defense, including access to witnesses, as she expressed, "It's a shame because, with something that's happening that has not happened in over 50 years, this is a historical moment, and it’s important that all of the offices are completely staffed with what they need."

Challenges presented during the initial hearings did little to enhance the image of a widely controversial tribunal process. In addition to panel bias, the failure to provide proper oversight, and the lack of resources made available to defense attorneys and officers, the competency of Arabic-English translators - indispensable to three of the four defendants - also became a point of contention. The government’s translator for Ali Hamza Ahmed Sulayman al-Bahlul was unable to keep pace with the defendant, and was several times corrected. Similarily, while speaking on behalf of her client Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud al-Qosi, Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer remarked, "He was very, very, very disappointed in the interpretation. About half of the time, he indicated that the translation was broken up, and he wasn't getting the full picture of what was taking place."

Human Rights Watch maintains that such inaccuracies raise the likelihood that defendants could be convicted based on inaccurate testimony.

Upon conclusion of the trials, Colonel Swann indicated nine more cases were being developed, CNN reports. At least one of the new cases could be announced within "a couple of weeks," and he added that when the new group of nine becomes public, "the American people will recognize the names of the individuals."

August 19, 2004

Judge Orders Immediate Handover of Detainee Records

The New York Times reports the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was victorious in a nearly 10-month struggle to obtain the abuse records of prisoners held in U.S. custody at overseas military bases and detention facilities, such as those at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

In U.S. District Court yesterday, a federal judge ordered the Bush administration to honor the ACLU’s requests, made under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) back in October 2003, culminating in a lawsuit filed in June 2004. The FOIA was passed by Congress in 1966, and allows citizens access to federal records.

Additional plaintiffs in the suit include the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans for Peace. Defendants accused of ignoring the requests and illegally withholding the records include the CIA, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Justice and the FBI.

According to a statement posted to the PHR website, the records requested back in 2003 address:

· the abuse or torture of detainees held at Abu Ghraib and other overseas detention facilities, and records of investigations and inquiries into that abuse;
· the deaths of detainees in United States custody, including records of investigations and inquiries into those deaths;
· policies governing the interrogation of detainees in United States custody;
· policies governing the "rendition" of detainees to countries known to use torture; and
· records describing any measures taken by the government to address concerns expressed by the Red Cross.

The court ordered the government to release the documents, or provide explanation for their continued withholding by August 23rd. Any remaining disputes will be resolved at a hearing scheduled for September 9th.

In a release posted to the ACLU website, the group expressed its satisfaction with the ruling, “We’re pleased that the court has ordered the government to produce these critical records that we and others have been demanding for so many months,” said Jameel Jaffer, an ACLU staff attorney. “If the administration has endorsed policies that violate domestic and international law, as appears to have been the case, the public surely has a right to know more about what those policies were and who was responsible for them.”

“In light of the serious abuses that have occurred and the possible involvement of high-ranking officials in condoning or authorizing those abuses, it is critical that these records be released immediately,” said Amrit Singh, a staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. “We want to know who knew what, when they knew it, and what, if anything, they did about it.”

August 18, 2004

Ronald Dworkin Analyzes Supreme Court Decisions

In an April 12 article in the NY Review of Books, legal scholar Ronald Dworkin analyzes the possible long-term impact of the Supreme Court desicions on Hamdi, Padilla and Rasul. Dworkin's discussions of the strengths and limitations of these decisions is particularly resonant given what has happened in the weeks since the article was written — namely, the attempts by the Justice Department to get around the jurisdiction issues explicitly addressed in the Rasul decision.

In the first part of the article, Dworkin writes:

"The Court's long-awaited decisions, announced on June 28, have been widely hailed by editorial writers as an important defeat for the administration and a significant victory for civil and human rights. These commentators may have exaggerated the practical impact of the decisions, however. Though the Court did insist that even in war executive detention of suspected enemy combatants must be subject to some form of review by a neutral tribunal, it suggested rules of procedure for any such review that omit important traditional protections for people accused of crimes. The government may well be able to satisfy the Court's lenient procedural standards without actually altering its morally dubious detention policies.

But in the longer run, the Court's decisions might prove to have a more profound impact, because the justices' arguments provide the legal basis for a much more powerful conclusion than the Court itself drew—that the Constitution does not permit the government to hold suspected enemy combatants or terrorists indefinitely without charging and convicting them of crimes, according them all the traditional protections of our criminal law process, unless they are treated in effect as prisoners of war. They would then have the benefits and protections allowed by international law, including the Geneva Conventions."

August 14, 2004

Four Detainees Given Enemy Combant Status

According to an August 14 Knight Ridder story, four detainees at the prison camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, were properly classified as "enemy combatants" and will not be released. England said 17 other detainees have completed the hearing process and that decisions are pending in those cases.

The review tribunals were hurriedly set up to allow suspects being held at the naval base to challenge their detention following a Supreme Court ruling in June that said Guantánamo prisoners have the right to a judicial review of the evidence against them.

The sessions began July 30 on the base, with each captive given a chance to make a case for release. The captives weren't allowed to have a lawyer, however. In the first four cases to be decided, Adm. Jim McGarrah, who provides the final review of the sessions held on the base, decided the detainees should be kept at the prison camp.

There is no appeal to the decision, though the detainees have the right to seek a review of their cases in U.S. federal court. The Pentagon decided not to disclose the nationalities of the four captives, at the request of their home governments, said Navy Cmdr. Beci Brenton.

England said more translators are on the way to Guantánamo to speed up the process. On Thursday, status tribunals were held for five detainees. One 40-year-old Kuwaiti captive argued Thursday that he had worked for an Islamic charity in Afghanistan and had no connection to the al-Qaida terrorist network. The military said the detainee was an organizer for the al-Wafa charity and was closely associated with a spokesman for al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

Several legal experts say the status reviews are an attempt by the Pentagon to avoid the oversight of federal judges as long as possible. Since the Supreme Court decision, petitions on behalf of more than 100 detainees have been filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Judges haven't acted on them yet.

"These tribunals are much like the screening called for by the Geneva Conventions that was not held after these people were captured," said Eugene Fidell, the president of the nonpartisan National Institute of Military Justice. "Two years later, removed from the site of capture, it's difficult to check information."

Most of the detainees were captured in Afghanistan and Pakistan soon after the Sept. 11 attacks and have been held for more than two years without hearings or access to lawyers. In many cases, they were captured by warlords and turned over to U.S. forces.

Since the camp was established in January 2002, the military has released 129 detainees and turned over 27 captives to the custody of other countries. There are 585 prisoners there.

Human rights groups have criticized the tribunals, saying they fall far short of the need to provide a forum to challenge detentions with the help of lawyers.

The tribunals are different from military commissions, scheduled to begin this month, in which 15 detainees have been designated to face war crimes charges.

August 13, 2004

Lawyers Seek To Delay Military Tribunals

According to an August 13 Boston Globe story, lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainees going before the first military tribunals since World War II are seeking to delay the trials, disqualify a key official, and make public as much of the evidence against their clients as possible.

Four detainees who have each been held for more than two years since being captured in Afghanistan are set to go to trial this fall or early next year for their alleged involvement with Al Qaeda. The motions will be decided by the presiding officer, retired Army Colonel Peter Brownback III, at hearings at Guantanamo Bay the week of Aug. 23.

The tribunals, which the military is calling ''commissions," have drawn intense scrutiny from human rights activists. The military is seeking to try David Hicks, an Australian who joined Muslim guerrilla movements in Chechnya and Afghanistan, first. The other three defendants, all accused of being personal aides to Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, will follow.

A Pentagon spokesman said the military would not comment on the motions because the presiding officer had not yet ruled on them. Military defense lawyers involved could not be reached yesterday. Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute for Military Justice, said the motions show the defense lawyers are mounting an attack on the the process structure, as well as the conduct of prosecutors and the presiding officer.

August 12, 2004

US Ordered To Give Rights Groups Torture Papers

An August 12 Reuters article states that The U.S. government has less than two weeks to start giving civil rights groups documents about the torture of prisoners held by U.S. forces at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and other facilities.
U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein expressed impatience with the government and said prosecutors must start handing over certain papers identified by the American Civil Liberties Union by Aug. 23 unless they can show the documents cannot be found or they are subject to certain exemptions.

"The court expressed a desire that this be done very quickly," said Lawrence Lustberg, a lawyer representing the civil rights groups. "He put this on a very fast track."

The ACLU and other civil rights groups sued the U.S. government in June for what they said was the illegal withholding of records about American military abuse of prisoners held in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and other locations.

The suit, filed in Manhattan federal court, charges that the U.S. Departments of Defense and other federal agencies failed to comply with a Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, request filed by the groups in October 2003 and May 2004. The FOIA allows citizens access to public federal records.

The plaintiffs are seeking records documenting torture and abuse which they said has occurred since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

August 10, 2004

Combatant Status Review Tribunals To Take Longer Than Planned

An August 8 Associated Press story states that the U.S. military now says the proceedings will take longer than initially planned because of unexpected snags in the tribunal process. Officials had hoped to hear dozens of cases a week, with the aim of reviewing all prisoners within four months. But complexities — having to work with interpreters, explaining the process to the prisoners, helping the men prepare their statements — might push hearings into 2005.

"It's been harder than we first thought," said a spokeswoman, Navy Cmdr. Beci Brenton.

After only one hearing Monday, proceedings were on hold until a session set for Wednesday. That was to allow officials to conduct interviews with detainees, who are being given their first formal chance to plead their case since the first batch began arriving in January 2002.

All of the prisoners are accused of ties to the ousted Taliban regime in Afghanistan or the al-Qaeda terror network.

Brenton said the tribunals are a time-consuming process since detainees need time to craft statements and to work with their interpreters and military-assigned personal representatives.

The U.S. military began the review tribunals after the Supreme Court ruled in June that the prisoners can challenge their detention in U.S. courts. It is still unclear how such challenges in U.S. courts would affect the military tribunals.

The tribunals are meant to determine if prisoners were properly classified as "enemy combatants," a distinction that gives them fewer legal rights than prisoners of war.

July 31, 2004

Justice Dept: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights

In court papers filed by the Justice Department on Friday, Guantanamo detainees seeking to file petitions challenging their detentions were not entitled to see their lawyers because they were foreigners held outside the jurisdiction of the United States, The New York Times reports.

It was the Department’s first detailed response to the wave of lawsuits filed on behalf of Guantanamo detainees.

According to The Times article, the 30-page brief argues that despite the 6-to-3 Supreme Court ruling on June 28th that found Guantanamo prisoners could in fact, challenge their detentions in federal courts, the prisoners still do not enjoy the rights provided by the Constitution.

“As aliens detained by the military outside the sovereign territory of the United States and lacking a sufficient connection to the country, petitioners have no cognizable constitutional rights,” the court papers stated.

Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling that prisoners should be allowed to file habeas corpus petitions challenging their detentions, The Times article suggests the Justice Department brief reflects the Bush administration’s commitment “to retaining as much control as possible over the detainees.”

July 17, 2004

Detainee Notification Completed; Military Tribunals to Begin

Officials announced yesterday that all Guantanamo detainees have been
notified of their right to challenge their enemy combatant status in U.S.
federal court.

During a July 14 Pentagon briefing, Secretary of the Navy Gordon England provided insight on detainee reaction to the notification, estimating “90 or 95 percent responded positively; that is, most of the people who received this information listened, read and asked questions. And their most commonly asked questions were: When can I meet with my personal representative, and when will the tribunal process begin? About 5 percent of the people responded negatively; that is, crumbled up the notice and threw it on the floor, whatever. But most of the people responded positively and were anxious to get this process under way.”

Sec. England - who is overseeing the tribunal process - told reporters that
barring unforeseen circumstances, the military hearings are scheduled to
begin at Guantanamo late next week, or early the following week. With three
tribunal teams operating concurrently, he expects to carry out 24 tribunals
with each team for a maximum of 72 detainees per week. At this rate, he
anticipates the hearings will be completed within three to four months.

When asked whether hearings will be open to the press, he confirmed that
while the details were still being worked out, they would be made accessible
to a small media pool as soon as possible. Likewise, when pressed for
written, detailed tribunal procedures, he said the document was forthcoming
and anticipated its release by Monday.

In response to the Supreme Court ruling late last month that the government
was detaining terror suspects without due process, the Pentagon announced it
would quickly hold hearings for all Guantanamo detainees, whereby every
detainee would be notified that his status as an enemy combatant would be
reviewed, and that he had a right to a habeas corpus hearing in federal
court. The Combatant Status Review Tribunals - the first U.S. military
tribunals convened since W.W.II - will not determine guilt or innocence but
rather, only if a detainee is being held as an enemy combatant rightly or
wrongly. Detainees found to be wrongly held will be returned to his home
country.

Each detainee will be appointed a personal representative to guide him
through the tribunal process, and assist him in presenting his case for
wrongful detention. Appointees are U.S. military officers, not advocates.
Additionally, detainees will not have attorney-client privilege. As The New York Times reports human rights groups have been critical of the military-run tribunals, claiming their inherent bias will not allow detainees a fair hearing. “So we’re told by the Department of Defense that prisoners, some held for two-and-a-half years, welcome a chance -- any chance -- to plead their case,” said Alistair Hodgett, spokesman for Amnesty International. “That’s hardly evidence that they -- or anyone else -- believes for a moment that the process is fair or just.”

When pressed if the tribunal system satisfies the Supreme Court ruling, Sec.
England responded he did not know, but that they would be “fair,” “open,”
“fact based” and “accurate.”

July 15, 2004

Gitmo Detainees Notified of New Rights

Reuters reports that the Pentagon on Monday began notifying the 594 remaining Guantanamo detainees of their right to challenge their captivity in federal court. Likewise, detainees were informed of the military tribunals at which they can contest their "enemy combatant" status - a designation the Bush administration averred, granted the executive branch authority to hold detainees indefinitely and without access to legal counsel. The administration's position received its greatest challenge last
month when the Supreme Court ruled detainees could in fact, contest their
captivity in federal court.

Officials expect all Guantanamo detainees - most held without charges for in
excess of two years - to be notified of their newly granted rights by
Thursday. Tribunals are scheduled to begin in two weeks.

The one-page notification was distributed to prisoners in their own
language, and was read to those who are illiterate. The document states
detainees will be notified in the near future what procedures are available
should they seek to challenge their detention in U.S. courts. It says a
U.S. military officer will assist them in presenting their case, and that a
translator will be made available to them. It does not however, specify how
a prisoner at the remote base would be able to hire or meet with a lawyer
for such a court challenge. Commander Beci Brenton, a spokeswoman for Navy
Secretary England who overseas the tribunal offered that such procedures
were "still being worked out."

The notification goes on to state that prisoners can present witnesses who
are "reasonably available," and that prisoners will be excluded from the
hearings when matters are presented that could compromise U.S. national
security.

As was the case with last week's announcement of the tribunal process, which
detractors quickly dismissed as "inadequate and illegal," this week's detainee notification also appeared flawed. Despite the Pentagon briefing during which Secretary England confirmed detainees found not to be enemy combatants will be released, the detainee notification fails to make such mention. "I feel like this is flouting the words of the Supreme Court, and that is
amazing to me," expressed Barbara Olshansky, attorney and deputy director of
the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), which led the action that led to
last month's Supreme Court ruling.

July 10, 2004

Guantanamo Detainees to Appeal in DC Federal Court

The Associated Press reports that a Federal Appeals Court ruled Thursday that Guantanamo detainees challenging their confinement must file their cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

It was the first time an appeals court has determined where detainee
challenges should be lodged.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals ruling resulted from a
habeas corpus petition filed by Belaid Gherebi, acting on behalf of his
brother Faren Gherebi, a Libyan captured in Afghanistan and detained at
Guantanamo for the past two years. Gherebi v. Bush was filed in California last December, well before the Supreme Court ruled last month that uncharged, non-citizen detainees did in fact, have the right to habeas corpus. The panel originally ruled that the petition could be heard in the central
District of California where it was filed. Judge Stephen Reinhardt explained that the U.S. government possesses exclusive territorial jurisdiction over the Guantanamo naval base and therefore, the appropriate venue for consideration of petitions appears to be in Washington D.C., where the officials responsible for confinement are based.

Since the Pentagon announced Wednesday that it was establishing military
tribunals at which detainees could contest their status as “enemy
combatants,” a flood of litigation is expected, and lawyers representing
other detainees say they too plan to sue in D.C. Federal Court.

July 08, 2004

Pentagon Announces Military Tribunals For Guantanamo Detainees

In preparation for the onslaught of legal challenges expected in civilian
courts, Reuters and the Associated Press report that the Pentagon issued an order establishing military review panels comprised of U.S. officers to determine whether nearly 600 Guantanamo detainees are being held legally. The military review process will precede any civilian hearing.

Responding to the June 28 Supreme Court decision that concluded Guantanamo
detainees cannot be interned indefinitely without a neutral review, the
Pentagon announced Wednesday that detainees will be notified by July 17 of the court’s ruling. Each of the detaineeswill be informed of their right to consult legal counsel and to challenge their detention status as an “unlawful enemy combatant” before the U.S. courts, as well as be given notice of the basis for their incarceration.

According to the New York Times, the process for establishing prisoner status appears to be an eleventh-hour effort by the Bush Administration to retain control over the handling of the Guantanamo detainees, and to illustrate appropriate review of detentions has been made. Operating on the presumption that the government is properly detaining terror suspects, a U.S. military officer will be assigned to each of the detainees. Assigned as personal - and ostensibly "neutral" representatives, officers will have access to Pentagon files detailing allegations made against their detainees. Although they require no legal training, officers will nonetheless assist in contesting detainee status.

Many procedural details are yet to be laid out, and officials have yet to
define what will constitute proof of illegal detention. Upon presentation
of such proof detainees will be permitted to challenge their legal standing
before a newly formed Combatant Status Review Tribunal, which will consist
of three military officers, at least one of whom will be an attorney.
According to officials at the Justice and Defense departments, if the review
determines a prisoner is not lawfully held, he will then be released to his
home country. It is not yet known if the hearings will be open to the public

A Defense Department official portrayed the tribunals as an entirely new
process that would grant the detainees most of the legal rights enjoyed by
American citizens, including the right to understand the basis for the case
being made against them. Detainees would not however, receive Fifth
Amendment protection. The process, a Justice Department official said,
would satisfy the Supreme Court, offering, “…we would be in a position to
argue that whatever rights to process they have (under the high court’s
action) have been satisfied, and a fair opportunity for them to be heard and
to have a fact-finding process determining the legality of their detention
has been provided. And that process is sufficient.”

Nevertheless, human rights and legal advocacy groups such as Amnesty
International and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) quickly
denounced the Pentagon's review process. Critics contend it does not
provide detainees their full rights granted by the Supreme Court, and
question whether the prisoners could receive a fair hearing. “The Supreme
Court upheld the rule of law over unchecked executive authority,” said
Rachel Meeropol, a lawyer with the CCR. “The review procedures for the
detainees set up by the Department of Defense are inadequate and illegal,
and they fail to satisfy the court’s ruling.”

July 07, 2004

Blair on Guantanamo: “Anomaly that must end.”Cites Security Concerns Upon Possible Repatriation of British Detainees

An Associated Press article reports that while British Prime Minister Tony Blair regards the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay as “an anomaly that has at some point got to be brought to an end,” efforts to repatriate the remaining 4 British detainees are marked with caution. Despite court papers obtained by the AP confirming Mr. Blair personally asked President Bush for the return of the remaining 4 Britons, both London and Washington concur that the detainees will not be returned until Britain can provide assurances that the men pose no security threat to Britain or elsewhere.

In March following a two-year detention, five Britons were released from the
base and have since been freed without charge.

July 02, 2004

Some Gitmo Detainees May Be Released Before They Can File Civ Cases

According to a July 2nd AP article, the Pentagon has said that it might release some Guantanamo Bay detainees deemed not to pose a security threat without first giving them access to civilian courts. Larry Di Rita, chief spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, said it was possible that if it could be determined some people need not be held then they also ``need not necessarily be part of a judicial process.''

Di Rita referred to the Pentagon's newly adopted system for annually reviewing each of the nearly 600 detention cases at Guantanamo Bay. Under that system, a panel of three military officers would assess each case, but the detainees would not be represented by lawyers.

CCR Demand Access To Clients In Wake of SC Decision

According to a July 2nd Washington Post article, a group of lawyers who represent 53 detainees at Guantanamo demanded yesterday that the Pentagon grant them unfettered access to their clients, saying that a U.S. Supreme Court decision this week leaves no doubt that the detainees have that right. Lawyers with the Center for Constitutional Rights made the demand in a letter faxed to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld yesterday afternoon.

They asked for access "as expeditiously as possible," contending that under the Supreme Court's ruling in Rasul v. Bush "there is no question of the right of each of them to file petitions for habeas corpus and to have access to counsel in order to do so." In the letter, Fogel also asked Rumsfeld to allow a delegation of lawyers into Guantanamo Bay to inform the detainees about the Supreme Court decisions, which granted the alleged al Qaeda and Taliban fighters held there access to U.S. courts to contest their detentions.

July 01, 2004

DOD: We Won't Shut Gitmo

According to a VOA news article, a U.S. Defense Department official says there are no plans to move terrorist suspects from the American naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to the United States. The Pentagon's Deputy General Counsel, John Sullivan, spoke one day after the Los Angeles Times newspaper said the Bush administration was considering such a move.

In an interview with military media outlets Thursday, Mr. Sullivan called the reports "pure speculation," and said no one has suggested the military stop using the prison camp at Guantanamo.

SC Tells Gherebi Lawyers To Refile In Federal Court

A June 30 AP article reports that the Supreme Court told a California court on Wednesday to reconsider whether a lawsuit filed on behalf of a Fahred Gherebi, a detainee at a Navy base prison in Cuba was filed in the wrong place.

Gherebi's suit, which also names President Bush and Rumsfeld, was filed on his behalf in California. Now the case presumably can be refiled along with appeals from other Guantanamo detainees. Lawyers working for other detainees have said they will sue in federal court in Washington, D.C.

Justices said Wednesday that the appeals court should look at the outcome of a separate enemy combatant case. In that 5-4 decision earlier this week, the court ruled that Jose Padilla should have filed his appeal in federal court in Charleston, S.C., because he is being held as an enemy combatant at a Navy brig there, rather than in New York.

LA Times: Rumor That Gitmo Prisoners May Be Relocated

According to a June 30 article in the Los Angeles Times, senior Bush administration officials are considering moving hundreds of detainees from a facility in Cuba to prisons within the United States in response to Supreme Court rulings this week that granted military prisoners access to U.S. courts, officials said Tuesday. Pentagon spokesman quickly added that they had reached no conclusion about this, however.

As attorneys for detainees at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, began preparing the first of hundreds of expected lawsuits demanding that the government justify the detentions, administration officials acknowledged that they were unprepared for a rebuke in two landmark Supreme Court decisions that rejected the military's treatment of prisoners in the war on terrorism.

Now, after being handed the losses, the administration has been left to scramble to develop a strategy for granting hearings to detainees without having to cope with an unwieldy series of lawsuits throughout the nation.

To avoid ferrying prisoners and government lawyers to federal courts across the country, as might be required, Pentagon and Justice Department officials said they had discussed moving all detainees to a military prison in a conservative judicial district within the United States to enable the consolidation of all the proceedings in one court. They said possible locations could be Ft. Leavenworth, Kan., where there is an Army base with a military prison, or Charleston, S.C., home of the Charleston Naval Weapons Station, which houses the Navy brig. Another option would be to allow prisoners to file for writs of habeas corpus — a demand for legal justification for their imprisonment — at a makeshift court at the base in Cuba. The Supreme Court left open the possibility of such an option.

Under a third proposal offered Justice Department officials and discussed at a high-level interagency meeting Tuesday, a senior administration official said, the administration would ask Congress to designate one federal court district to try the cases — most likely Washington, D.C., or the Eastern District of Virginia, whose jurisdiction includes the Pentagon.

The changes could occur as part of a general reorganization of Guantanamo currently under consideration in which the prison facility would be revamped, with detainees segregated by the level of threat they are thought to pose, the senior administration official said.

June 28, 2004

Court Decides Against Adminstration In Rasul

The Washington Post reports that the Supreme Court has just ruled that foreign terrorism suspects at Guantanamo can use the American legal system to challenge their detention, a major defeat for President Bush.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices ruled that American courts do have jurisdiction to consider the claims of the prisoners who say in their lawsuits they are being held illegally in violation of their rights. The ruling did not address the merits of the claims, but allowed the prisoners to pursue their lawsuits, which lower courts had dismissed.

June 24, 2004

British Attorney General Blasts Tribunal Plan

BBC and Guardian articles report that the planned military tribunals for terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have been deemed unacceptable by the British attorney general. In a speech on Friday, Lord Goldsmith is to say there can be "no compromise" on certain principles and the US tribunals would not offer a fair trial.

Four British men are still being held at the Cuban camp. Britons Feroz Abbasi from Croydon, south London, and Moazzam Begg, from Birmingham, were on the initial list of six to be tried under the controversial set-up. But they have now been taken off the list while discussions continue between the US and UK about the future of all the British detainees.

Senate Blocks Bid To Demand Abuse Memos

A June 24 Reuters article reports that Republicans in the Senate have defeated a bid by Democrats to force the administration to release documents on the treatment of enemy combatants in the wake of the prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq.

On a party-line vote, the Senate defeated 50-46 an amendment demanding Attorney General John Ashcroft turn over documents on the interrogation and treatment of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Democrats accused Republicans of cooperating with a White House cover-up of policies that they said may have contributed to the scandal at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad where photographs showed U.S. soldiers abusing detainees.

US To Begin Review of Guantanamo Prisoners

According to a June 23 Reuters article, the Pentagon will immediately begin its planned annual reviews for 600 foreign terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to determine whether some should be released, a senior defense official said on Wednesday. U.S. Navy Secretary Gordon England, who will make final decisions in each case, said the Defense Department will contact other governments next week to get information on their citizens to three-member U.S. military boards.
The reviews will come amid widespread criticism of U.S. abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Human rights groups have protested the lengthy detention of prisoners captured in Afghanistan and held, some for years, at Guantanamo without a hearing. A detailed report this week in The New York Times said U.S. officials have repeatedly exaggerated the intelligence value of Guantanamo detainees, as well as the danger they pose.

June 21, 2004

NYT: Value of Gitmo Detainees Challenged

A June 21 New York Times article, reporters Tim Golden and Don Van Natta claim that the Times has found that "government and military officials have repeatedly exaggerated both the danger the detainees posed and the intelligence they have provided."

The reporters write that "in interviews, dozens of high-level military, intelligence and law-enforcement officials in the United States, Europe and the Middle East said that, contrary to the repeated assertions of senior administration officials, none of the detainees at the U.S. naval base at Guantánamo Bay ranked as leaders or senior operatives of Al Qaeda. They said that only a relative handful - some put the number at about a dozen, others more than two dozen - were sworn Qaeda members or other high-value militants able to elucidate the organization's inner workings.

While some of the information has contributed to terrorism investigations, none of it has enabled intelligence or law-enforcement services to foil imminent attacks, the officials said. Compared with the higher profile Qaeda operatives held elsewhere by the CIA, the Guantánamo detainees have provided only a trickle of intelligence with current value, the officials said."

June 14, 2004

Gitmo Videos Turned Over

According to a June 14 Reuters article, officers at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base have turned over to military authorities more than 500 hours of videotape showing guards subduing prisoners and forcibly moving them from cells. The tapes are expected to be released in a few weeks to Pentagon and congressional investigators examining abuses of prisoners by US troops, and many will probably be made public, officials told journalists visiting the base.

The tapes show five-member teams of guards subduing prisoners who break camp rules, throw bodily waste at guards, or refuse to leave their cells when ordered to, said Colonel Nelson Cannon, the prison warden. They document 500 to 600 instances where the teams were called in to move or restrain prisoners, Cannon said.

June 13, 2004

NYT On Charles Swift, Gitmo Defense Lawyer

In the June 12 New York Times Magazine, Jonathan Mahler profiles Charles Swift, a military defense attorney assigned to defend those slated for military tribunals at Guantanamo. In January, according to the Mahler, "Swift and his colleagues filed an incendiary friend-of-the-court brief with the Supreme Court in which, among other things, they compared their commander in chief, President Bush, to the villain of the American Revolution, King George III. In April, Swift went even further, suing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Bush in federal court in Seattle on the grounds that their plan for a military tribunal for his client -- who has still not been charged or given a trial date -- violates the Constitution, federal law, the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

Mahler continues:

"An optimist by nature, Swift was inclined to believe that the post-9/11 military-tribunal process would be fair. But over the course of the spring last year, as the Defense Department continued to define the workings of the military tribunals, his hopefulness began to fade. He learned that under the emerging system, his client, should he be assigned one, would not necessarily be able to see the evidence against him. Hearsay would be permitted, and there would be no appeals process beyond a four-member review panel handpicked by the secretary of defense. What is more, the Defense Department (in effect, the prosecution) was not only defining the crimes worthy of trial by military tribunal but also doing so only after hundreds of suspects were already in custody and had been repeatedly interrogated. In theory, crimes could be retrofitted to suit the testimony of prisoners. 'It was like a Monty Python movie,'' Swift says. ''The government had this wonderful suit of armor, a lance and a sword. And I had been given a sharp stick.'"

June 12, 2004

David Hicks Formally Charged

A June 10 Reuters article lays out criminal charges against a David Hicks, an Australian man held at Guantanamo Bay. Hicks has been accused of of conspiracy to commit war crimes, attempted murder and aiding the enemy, and will face trial before a U.S. military tribunal, although no date has been set. While the United States holds about 595 non-U.S. citizens at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Hicks, 28, became just the third Guantanamo prisoner to be charged with any crime. Another Australian citizen, Egyptian-born Mamdouh Habib, is being held there without charges.

These military tribunals, formally called commissions, will be the first of their kind for the United States since World War Two. The Pentagon confirmed earlier statements by the Australian government that U.S. prosecutors will not seek the death penalty against Hicks. Human rights and legal activists have criticised the United States for holding prisoners in Guantanamo without charges, while excoriating the rules established for the military tribunal trials as rigged to yield convictions. Military lawyers assigned by the Pentagon to defend Guantanamo prisoners have been among the most critical.

June 11, 2004

Document warns Guantanamo employees not to talk

According to a June 11th USA Today article, military and civilian employees at the Guantanamo Bay detention center have been issued a memo warning them not to talk with attorneys who represent detainees held there. The document, obtained by USA TODAY, says that soldiers and interrogators are not required to give defense attorneys statements about the "personal treatment of detainees" or any "failure to report actions of others." It also says that refusing to cooperate with defense attorneys "will not impact your career."

A Defense Department spokesman said the document was aimed at ensuring that Guantanamo employees "know what their rights are." The spokesman said the references to detainee treatment are "relevant examples that make such training better."

Halabi Called 'Anti-American' For Criticizing Gitmo Conditions

A June 11 Reuters article reports that Airman Ahmad Al Halabi, the Syrian-American who faces charges of spying and misusing classified information while serving as a translator at Guantanamo Bay, was charged in part for complaining about the conditions faced by prisoners there.

In an interview on Thursday, his military attorney, Maj. James Key, said Halabi criticised the prison conditions at the base after his arrest in Florida a year ago, remarks that the prosecution had earlier alleged showed an anti-American bent.
The military prosecution has since dropped a related charge of anti-American statements, but said it intends to use the statements in the trial as evidence, Key said.

May 31, 2004

Hicks To Face Military Tribunal in August

According to a May 30 Sydney Morning Herald article, David Hicks is to be charged within days, and will face a military trial in August. The announcement was made by Australian Prime Minister John Howard, who is scheduled to meet President Bush in Washington on Thursday. Howard also said that the second Australian, Mamdouh Habib, is on a list of detainees to face a military trial that will be approved by Mr Bush early next month.

May 29, 2004

UK Faces Guantanamo Legal Challenge

According to a May 27 Reuters wire article, lawyers acting for two Britons held at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay have begun court action to force the British government to officially demand the detainees be sent home.

Lawyers acting on behalf of Feroz Abbasi and Martin Mubanga say the men have been tortured and would not receive a fair trial. Linking Guantanamo and the Abu Ghraib jail, and citing statements from those already freed from the jail in Cuba, they argued there is "compelling" evidence that prisoners were treated inhumanely.

Meek: Open Hearings on ALL Detention Facilities

A May 26 Miami Herald article reports that Rep. Kendrick Meek, who returned from a tour of Guantanamo last week, has criticized Congress for not taking a more active role in monitoring the detentions there. Though Meek said had few complaints about what he saw during his one-day Guantanamo visit, he called for full, open hearings into detention facilities in the wake of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. Meek complained that Republican House leaders are trying to stifle congressional investigations while questioning the patriotism of those who wanted more hearings.

May 26, 2004

Boston Globe On Upcoming Court Decisions

In a May 25 Boston Globe article, Peter Canellos considers the possible effect of the upcoming Supreme Court decisions, which, he hopes, will limit what the President can do in the pursuit of suspected terrorists. Canellos writes:

Viewing this breathtakingly ambitious campaign as a single war may have been a mistake from the start. After all, every war needs an obvious enemy, and this one seems to cover anyone (including Americans) the president declares to be a terrorist; anyone defending a country suspected of aiding terrorism; and all others of any nationality who are suspected of thwarting the US effort to fight terrorism.

The dangers of having no common understanding of who should be considered the enemy and therefore of how they should be treated under the Geneva Conventions are on display at Abu Ghraib. They are also on display at Guantanamo, where prisoners complain that the rules allow the United States to hold them for the duration of the war on terrorism, a war so broadly defined that it could literally never en

May 24, 2004

Lawyer/Client Meeting Refused at Gitmo

According to a May 24 AP wire article, The Supreme Court refused Monday to let an attorney meet with his client at Guantanamo.

Lawyer Stephen Yagman had said he wanted to make sure Falen Gherebi, a Libyan captured in Afghanistan, was not abused at Guantanamo Bay.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor refused without comment to order a meeting.

Yagman had said in a filing last week that he was concerned Gherebi "may have been or may be subjected to improper treatment at the hands of his captors at Guantanamo Bay."

The filing did not make any specific allegations, but follows claims by former British detainees who say they were abused and videotaped at Guantanamo Bay.

May 19, 2004

Pentagon: Review Procedures For Remaining Gitmo Prisoners

A May 18 Los Angeles Times article details the procedures for the annual review of status of prisoners which remain at Guantanamo Bay. In the reviews — which the Pentagon announced yesterday are slated to begin in the next few weeks — a panel of three officers will decide whether prisoners, if released, would remain a threat to the United States. These assessments will be held in secret and the results will not be announced. The panel's recommendation will be passed to a senior civilian at the Defense Department, who will make the final call. Defense officials say that the reviews are not required by international law, and that the prisoners at Guantanamo may be held for the duration of the war on terrorism. An NPR report on the new procedures is here.

May 16, 2004

More On How Abu Ghraib Might Affect Court

A May 16 article in the San Jose Mercury news further explores the possible impact of the unfolding events at Abu Ghraib on the upcoming Supreme Court decision on Rasul — which should be announced by the end of June. According to the Mercury-News, David Scheffer, a former war-crimes cases ambassador in the State Department, said the justices now realize that the government did not disclose much about how detainees in the war on terrorism have been treated. ``This increases the likelihood that the `trust us' argument will not succeed,'' Scheffer said. ``It will be the court's responsibility to draw some kind of line on this -- some fundamental rights for detainees even if they are not technically POWs.''

May 13, 2004

Iraq Prison Abuse May Sway Guantanamo Case

In a May 13 Washington Post article, Charles Lane notes that members of the Bush Administration legal team feel that the Iraqi prison scandal will affect the Supreme Court's decision on the jurisdiction question in Guantanamo. Lane quotes one lawyer as saying that the events of recent days "hurts us like hell....it is clearly going to impact the judges."

May 11, 2004

More on Abu Ghraib and the Courts

MSNBC legal analyst Tom Curry cites several legal experts in an article that adds to the growing speculation that the events of recent days will influence the Supreme Court to rule against the Administration on Guantanamo. According to Curry, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg specifically raised the issue of torture during the Rasul arguments on April 20th, asking what might happen if, “the executive decides, 'Mild torture, we think, will help get this information.'”

Curry notes that Clement's response — insisting that "mild torture" was not an administration strategy and concluding, "you have to trust the executive" — may be more difficult for the justices to accept in the wake of the Abu Ghraib events.

May 04, 2004

More Criticism of Gitmo Tribunals By Military Lawyers

An article in today's New York Times details the continuing tension between the Bush administration and the government-appointed lawyers set to defend Guantanamo detainees. According to the Times, the tribunals have taken an unexpected turn: the Administration had expected that the lawyers would simply advise their prisoners to plead guilty, but this has NOT been the case. The lawyers have not simply proclaimed their clients are innocent: they have denounced the tribunal system as rigged. Their extent to which they have made their disapproval public has apparently surprised even Michael Ratner of the Center For Constitutional Law, the group challenging the Guantanamo detentions in federal court. The lawyers themselves seem to be daring the Administration to censure them for their actions — they identify themselves as "defenders of the Constitution."

April 30, 2004

Opinion: The President Courting Defeat in Guantamo Case

In an article in this week's National Journal, Stuart Taylor argues that "President Bush seems likely to lose the first big war-on-terrorism batt