Post by earl on Jun 13, 2008 9:16:24 GMT
Judgment allowing defendants to challenge their imprisonment could spell the end of offshore war-crimes trials
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court dealt the Bush administration a stunning setback yesterday, ruling that terrorist suspects imprisoned at Guantanamo can fight for their rights in U.S. courts and likely sounding a death knell for the controversial offshore war-crimes trials.
The ruling "stripped Guantanamo of its reason for being, a law-free zone where prisoners can't challenge their detention," said Kenneth Roth, executive-director at Human Rights Watch.
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered a harsh rebuke of the Bush administration's efforts to craft war-crimes trials beyond the reach of American justice. "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times," he wrote.
Yesterday's ruling was the third straight judgment against the Bush administration concerning the rights of Guantanamo prisoners.
It cast a cloud over the entire process. Not only do Guantanamo detainees have the explicit right to challenge, in U.S. federal courts, their continued imprisonment, but the court also ruled that the process by which detainees are classified as "enemy combatants" may also be challenged.
The sweeping ruling, certain to set off a blizzard of court filings, seems likely to derail the handful of trials under way, including that of Omar Khadr, the Canadian accused of murdering a U.S. soldier, and may finish President George W. Bush's hope of putting al-Qaeda leaders on trial before he leaves office in January.
With only few months remaining in the term of a deeply unpopular, lame-duck President and with Democrats controlling both houses of Congress, the prospects for new laws to create, for the third time, another Bush administration war-crimes tribunal seem remote.
Mr. Khadr's case, scheduled to resume next week before a new military judge after the last one was removed or retired, may be the first affected by yesterday's ruling.
But the full scope of the court's decision may take months of litigation and perhaps new legislation before the fate of the war-crimes trials is concluded.
Mr. Bush decried the 5-4 split decision in which the court's liberal members prevailed.
"We'll abide by the court's decision," the President said in Rome. "That doesn't mean I have to agree with it."
The President said he wanted Congress to write new laws to restore the controversial military war-crimes tribunals currently held in a makeshift courtroom on a disused airport at a U.S. naval base in Cuba, a set-up designed from its inception to be beyond the reach of U.S. law and the Constitution.
Dissenting judges, including Chief Justice John Roberts, stridently denounced the majority ruling. The Guantanamo process offers "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants," Chief Justice Roberts said.
Another conservative, Justice Antonin Scalia darkly warned that America "will live to regret what the court has done today," adding that al-Qaeda will strike. Giving Guantanamo's 280 terrorist suspects access to U.S. courts to challenge their incarceration and the legitimacy of the tribunals "will almost certainly cause more Americans to get killed."
Both Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, and his Republican rival, Senator John McCain of Arizona, have said they will close Guantanamo's prison camp, which has become emblematic of America's reputation for abuse of prisoners.
However, the vexed issue of where to hold hundreds of potentially dangerous and violent Islamic jihadists and whether they can, or should, face trial in the United States in civilian or military courts remains unclear.
Yesterday's Supreme Court ruling should hasten Mr. Khadr's return to Canada, said his military lawyer, Lieutenant-Commander William Kuebler. "This is just one more reason for the Government of Canada to bring him home to face charges in Canada, instead of sitting and languishing, perhaps for years, in Guantanamo."
Growing support in and outside Parliament for Mr. Khadr's return to Canada has so far failed to move the Harper government.
Although Mr. Khadr was only 15 years old when he was involved, and seriously injured, in a battle with U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, the Harper government has rejected the position taken by the British and Australian governments, both of which intervened to have their nationals returned.
Lawyers for the handful of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay who have been charged are expected to file for dismissals.
Whether some of the high-profile defendants, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - alleged mastermind of the Sept 11, 2001, terrorist hijackings that killed nearly 3,000 people, destroyed New York's twin World Trade Center towers and damaged the Pentagon - will welcome the likely delay in the tribunals is uncertain. His trial, and that of four other alleged al-Qaeda kingpins, was to begin Sept. 15, more than seven years after the suicide hijackings.
Last week, at his arraignment, a defiant Mr. Mohammed said he would welcome execution. "I'm looking to be a martyr for a long time," he told the tribunal located inside a barbed-wire enclosure full of tents called Camp Justice.
Mr. Bush wanted the suspects brought to justice before he left the Oval Office.
Rights groups lauded the Supreme Court's decision.
Amnesty International said the Bush administration "should close Guantanamo promptly, abandon the fundamentally unfair military commission proceedings and either release or charge and try detainees held there in U.S. federal courts."
Even some conservative groups, like the Cato Institute, have broken with the President over Guantanamo.
Tim Lynch, director of the institute's Project on Criminal Justice said "By warehousing prisoners outside of the United States, at Guantanamo, Bush's lawyers argued that habeas corpus was simply unavailable to any prisoner at that facility. The Supreme Court rejected that claim decisively when it said the test for determining the scope of habeas corpus 'must not be subject to manipulation by those whose power it is designed to restrain.' "
The court was split along its usual conservative-liberal fault line. Chief Justice Roberts was joined in the minority by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas as well as by Justice Scalia. The majority included Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens as well as Justice Kennedy.
Guantanamo chronology
January, 2002 The first suspected terrorists arrive at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The White House declares that they do not have the rights accorded by U.S. law or the Geneva Conventions.
March Officials say the prisoners will be tried in special military tribunals.
March, 2003 A U.S. Appeals Court rules that the detainees will not have hearings in U.S. courts.
October The Red Cross breaks its traditional neutrality, and says it's unacceptable to hold suspects at the prison camp without legal safeguards.
November The U.S. Supreme Court agrees to examine whether the U.S. legal system has any jurisdiction over those held at Guantanamo Bay.
February, 2004 The U.S. government says a three-member panel will review each prisoner's detention yearly.
February, 2006 The U.S. rejects calls from UN human-rights investigators to try the prisoners or free them.
May Four former prisoners from Britain win the right to sue the U.S. for violating their religious beliefs.
June The U.S. Supreme Court rules that the government does not have the authority to try the suspects in a military tribunal, but leaves the door open for Congress to grant the authority. It also rules that the detainees must be accorded Geneva Convention rights.
April, 2007 The U.S. Supreme Court refuses to rule on whether the prisoners can take their cases to federal court.
June 4 A U.S. military judge throws out charges against two suspects on a technicality. The charges are refiled in a manner that satisfies the tribunals.
June 29 The U.S. Supreme Court reverses its earlier decision and agrees to hear an appeal on whether the detainees can challenge their detention in federal courts.
December The top court hears arguments challenging Congress's decision to deny detainees the right of habeas corpus - a centuries-old legal principle, enshrined in the Constitution, that allows courts to determine whether a prisoner is being held illegally.
June, 2008 The U.S. Supreme Court rules that the detainees have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court dealt the Bush administration a stunning setback yesterday, ruling that terrorist suspects imprisoned at Guantanamo can fight for their rights in U.S. courts and likely sounding a death knell for the controversial offshore war-crimes trials.
The ruling "stripped Guantanamo of its reason for being, a law-free zone where prisoners can't challenge their detention," said Kenneth Roth, executive-director at Human Rights Watch.
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered a harsh rebuke of the Bush administration's efforts to craft war-crimes trials beyond the reach of American justice. "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times," he wrote.
Yesterday's ruling was the third straight judgment against the Bush administration concerning the rights of Guantanamo prisoners.
It cast a cloud over the entire process. Not only do Guantanamo detainees have the explicit right to challenge, in U.S. federal courts, their continued imprisonment, but the court also ruled that the process by which detainees are classified as "enemy combatants" may also be challenged.
The sweeping ruling, certain to set off a blizzard of court filings, seems likely to derail the handful of trials under way, including that of Omar Khadr, the Canadian accused of murdering a U.S. soldier, and may finish President George W. Bush's hope of putting al-Qaeda leaders on trial before he leaves office in January.
With only few months remaining in the term of a deeply unpopular, lame-duck President and with Democrats controlling both houses of Congress, the prospects for new laws to create, for the third time, another Bush administration war-crimes tribunal seem remote.
Mr. Khadr's case, scheduled to resume next week before a new military judge after the last one was removed or retired, may be the first affected by yesterday's ruling.
But the full scope of the court's decision may take months of litigation and perhaps new legislation before the fate of the war-crimes trials is concluded.
Mr. Bush decried the 5-4 split decision in which the court's liberal members prevailed.
"We'll abide by the court's decision," the President said in Rome. "That doesn't mean I have to agree with it."
The President said he wanted Congress to write new laws to restore the controversial military war-crimes tribunals currently held in a makeshift courtroom on a disused airport at a U.S. naval base in Cuba, a set-up designed from its inception to be beyond the reach of U.S. law and the Constitution.
Dissenting judges, including Chief Justice John Roberts, stridently denounced the majority ruling. The Guantanamo process offers "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants," Chief Justice Roberts said.
Another conservative, Justice Antonin Scalia darkly warned that America "will live to regret what the court has done today," adding that al-Qaeda will strike. Giving Guantanamo's 280 terrorist suspects access to U.S. courts to challenge their incarceration and the legitimacy of the tribunals "will almost certainly cause more Americans to get killed."
Both Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, and his Republican rival, Senator John McCain of Arizona, have said they will close Guantanamo's prison camp, which has become emblematic of America's reputation for abuse of prisoners.
However, the vexed issue of where to hold hundreds of potentially dangerous and violent Islamic jihadists and whether they can, or should, face trial in the United States in civilian or military courts remains unclear.
Yesterday's Supreme Court ruling should hasten Mr. Khadr's return to Canada, said his military lawyer, Lieutenant-Commander William Kuebler. "This is just one more reason for the Government of Canada to bring him home to face charges in Canada, instead of sitting and languishing, perhaps for years, in Guantanamo."
Growing support in and outside Parliament for Mr. Khadr's return to Canada has so far failed to move the Harper government.
Although Mr. Khadr was only 15 years old when he was involved, and seriously injured, in a battle with U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, the Harper government has rejected the position taken by the British and Australian governments, both of which intervened to have their nationals returned.
Lawyers for the handful of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay who have been charged are expected to file for dismissals.
Whether some of the high-profile defendants, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - alleged mastermind of the Sept 11, 2001, terrorist hijackings that killed nearly 3,000 people, destroyed New York's twin World Trade Center towers and damaged the Pentagon - will welcome the likely delay in the tribunals is uncertain. His trial, and that of four other alleged al-Qaeda kingpins, was to begin Sept. 15, more than seven years after the suicide hijackings.
Last week, at his arraignment, a defiant Mr. Mohammed said he would welcome execution. "I'm looking to be a martyr for a long time," he told the tribunal located inside a barbed-wire enclosure full of tents called Camp Justice.
Mr. Bush wanted the suspects brought to justice before he left the Oval Office.
Rights groups lauded the Supreme Court's decision.
Amnesty International said the Bush administration "should close Guantanamo promptly, abandon the fundamentally unfair military commission proceedings and either release or charge and try detainees held there in U.S. federal courts."
Even some conservative groups, like the Cato Institute, have broken with the President over Guantanamo.
Tim Lynch, director of the institute's Project on Criminal Justice said "By warehousing prisoners outside of the United States, at Guantanamo, Bush's lawyers argued that habeas corpus was simply unavailable to any prisoner at that facility. The Supreme Court rejected that claim decisively when it said the test for determining the scope of habeas corpus 'must not be subject to manipulation by those whose power it is designed to restrain.' "
The court was split along its usual conservative-liberal fault line. Chief Justice Roberts was joined in the minority by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas as well as by Justice Scalia. The majority included Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens as well as Justice Kennedy.
Guantanamo chronology
January, 2002 The first suspected terrorists arrive at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The White House declares that they do not have the rights accorded by U.S. law or the Geneva Conventions.
March Officials say the prisoners will be tried in special military tribunals.
March, 2003 A U.S. Appeals Court rules that the detainees will not have hearings in U.S. courts.
October The Red Cross breaks its traditional neutrality, and says it's unacceptable to hold suspects at the prison camp without legal safeguards.
November The U.S. Supreme Court agrees to examine whether the U.S. legal system has any jurisdiction over those held at Guantanamo Bay.
February, 2004 The U.S. government says a three-member panel will review each prisoner's detention yearly.
February, 2006 The U.S. rejects calls from UN human-rights investigators to try the prisoners or free them.
May Four former prisoners from Britain win the right to sue the U.S. for violating their religious beliefs.
June The U.S. Supreme Court rules that the government does not have the authority to try the suspects in a military tribunal, but leaves the door open for Congress to grant the authority. It also rules that the detainees must be accorded Geneva Convention rights.
April, 2007 The U.S. Supreme Court refuses to rule on whether the prisoners can take their cases to federal court.
June 4 A U.S. military judge throws out charges against two suspects on a technicality. The charges are refiled in a manner that satisfies the tribunals.
June 29 The U.S. Supreme Court reverses its earlier decision and agrees to hear an appeal on whether the detainees can challenge their detention in federal courts.
December The top court hears arguments challenging Congress's decision to deny detainees the right of habeas corpus - a centuries-old legal principle, enshrined in the Constitution, that allows courts to determine whether a prisoner is being held illegally.
June, 2008 The U.S. Supreme Court rules that the detainees have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.