 |
02/20/07
Judges: Guantanamo prisoners can't use courts to challenge
detentions
By HOPE YEN
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a victory for President Bush, a divided
federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that Guantanamo Bay detainees
cannot use the U.S. court system to challenge their indefinite
imprisonment. A Supreme Court appeal was promised.
The 2-1 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit dismisses hundreds of cases filed by foreign-born
detainees in federal court and also threatens to strip away
court access to millions of lawful permanent residents currently
in the United States.
It upholds a key provision of the Military Commissions Act,
which Bush pushed through Congress last year to set up a Defense
Department system to prosecute terrorism suspects. Now, detainees
must prove to three-officer military panels that they don't
pose a terror threat.
Democrats newly in charge of Congress promised legislation
aimed at giving detainees legal rights. Attorneys for detainees
said they would appeal Tuesday's ruling to the Supreme Court.
"We're disappointed," said Shayana Kadidal of the
Center for Constitutional Rights. "The bottom line is
that according to two of the federal judges, the president
can do whatever he wants without any legal limitations as
long as he does it offshore."
The two judges voting with the White House -- Judge A. Raymond
Randolph and Judge David B. Sentelle -- were appointed by
Republicans. President Reagan appointed Sentelle, and President
George H.W. Bush appointed Randolph. The dissenter, Judge
Judith W. Rogers, was appointed by President Clinton, a Democrat.
White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino called the
decision "a significant win" for the administration
and said the Military Commissions Act provides "sufficient
and fair access to courts for these detainees."
At the Justice Department, attorneys urged Chief Justice John
G. Roberts to deny legal relief to Guantanamo prisoners. They
also said that in the case of Sharaf al-Sanani, a Yemeni being
held at Guantanamo, the government was no longer obligated
to explain why he was being detained.
About 395 detainees are currently being held at the U.S. military
base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. The first prisoners arrived
more than five years ago, after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror
attacks.
At issue is the right of habeas corpus, a basic tenet of the
Constitution protecting detainees from unlawful imprisonment.
Twice before, the Supreme Court ruled that right gave Guantanamo
detainees full access to courts.
But in their latest ruling last June, justices suggested the
president could ask Congress for more anti-terrorism authority,
prompting passage of the commissions act that in part stripped
federal court review.
Randolph, writing for the majority, said the new commissions
act clearly blocked court access and was constitutional because
a "foreign entity without property or presence in this
country has no constitutional rights."
"The arguments are creative but not cogent. To accept
them would be to defy the will of Congress," Randolph
wrote in the 25-page opinion, which was joined by Sentelle.
In dissent, Rogers said the cases should proceed. She argued
that the military hearings -- known as Combatant Status Review
Tribunals, or CSRTs -- deprive detainees of critical due process
rights provided by the Constitution by putting the legal burden
on detainees to prove they aren't terrorist threats.
"District courts are well able to adjust these proceedings
in light of the government's significant interests in guarding
national security," Rogers wrote. "More significant
still, continued detention may be justified by a CSRT on the
basis of evidence resulting from torture."
Under the commissions act, the government may indefinitely
detain foreigners who have been designated as "enemy
combatants" and authorizes the CIA to use aggressive
but undefined interrogation tactics.
A spokeswoman for Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick
Leahy, D-Vt., said Leahy had prioritized a bill that would
restore detainees' legal rights, noting that some 12 million
lawful permanent residents currently in the U.S. could also
be stripped of rights if they were ever designated as "enemy
combatants."
Leahy was referring to the case of Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri,
a citizen of Qatar, who was arrested in 2001 as an "enemy
combatant" while studying in the United States. The Justice
Department says the commissions law should apply to immigrants
such as him, and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
Richmond, Va., is expected to issue a ruling soon.
A provision restoring detainees' rights, introduced by Leahy
and then-Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., narrowly
failed last year on a 48-51 vote.
"The Military Commissions Act is a dangerous and misguided
law that undercuts our freedoms and assaults our Constitution
by removing vital checks and balances designed to prevent
government overreaching and lawlessness," Leahy said
in a statement.
But Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who helped draft the new commission
law, heralded the ruling as "respecting the will of Congress."
"The detainees held at Guantanamo Bay do not have an
unfettered constitutional right," he said. "In fact,
the legal and humane actions of the U.S. government stand
in stark contrast to our al-Qaeda enemies who behead those
they capture."
Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., who chairs the House Armed Services
Committee, said he will launch a congressional review to determine
whether military hearings offer detainees legal protections
to which they are entitled.
"The last thing that we would want is to convict an individual
for terrorism and then have that conviction overturned because
of fatal flaws in the military commissions law passed in the
previous Congress," Skelton said.
Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney at the Brennan Center for Justice,
said the ruling sends the wrong message about justice to U.S.
citizens and the international community. Ultimately, it will
be the Supreme Court that will have to sort out the legal
mess, he said.
"It's a terrible ruling that contradicts centuries of
Anglo-American history and allows the indefinite detention
of innocent people without charge or judicial review,"
Hafetz said.
___
On the Net:
The ruling can be found at:
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200702/05-5062b.pdf
Senate Judiciary Committee: http://judiciary.senate.gov
|
