Posted on 01/31/2005 9:36:17 AM PST by Hawk44
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. judge dealt a setback to the Bush administration and ruled on Monday that the Guantanamo Bay terrorism suspects can challenge their confinement and the procedures in their military tribunal review process are unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens Green said the prisoners at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have constitutional protections under U.S. law.
"The court concludes that the petitioners have stated valid claims under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and that the procedures implemented by the government to confirm that the petitioners are 'enemy combatants' subject to indefinite detention violate the petitioners' rights to due process of law," Green wrote.
More than 540 suspects are being held at Guantanamo after being detained during the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan (news - web sites) and in other operations in the U.S. war on terrorism. They are al Qaeda suspects and accused Taliban fighters. The ruling pertained to only 50 detainees.
Bush administration attorneys argued the prisoners have no constitutional rights and their lawsuits challenging the conditions of their confinement and seeking their release must be dismissed.
The tribunals, formally called a military commission, at the base were authorized by President Bush (news - web sites) after the Sept. 11, 2001, hijacked airliner attacks on the United States, but have been criticized by human rights groups as unfair to defendants.
At issue in the ruling was the July 7, 2004, order by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz creating a military tribunal -- called the Combatant Status Review Tribunal -- to check the status of each Guantanamo detainee as an "enemy combatant."
The procedures used for the tribunals "are unconstitutional for failing to comport with the requirements of due process," Green concluded.
She said the procedures failed to give the detainees access to material evidence and failed to let lawyers help them when the government refused to disclose classified information.
The main part of her ruling held the suspects can challenge their confinement and rejected the government's position that all the cases must be dismissed.
"Of course, it would be far easier for the government to prosecute the war on terrorism if it could imprison all suspected 'enemy combatants' at Guantanamo Bay without having to acknowledge and respect any constitutional rights of detainees," Green said.
"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 two hundred years," Green said.
"In sum, there can be no question that the Fifth Amendment right asserted by the Guantanamo detainees in this litigation -- the right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law -- is one of the most fundamental rights recognized by the U.S. Constitution," she said.
Green also ruled that some of the suspects have brought valid claims under the Geneva Convention, the international treaty protecting the rights of prisoners of war.
A group of attorneys representing some of the suspects hailed the ruling. "Now it's time for this administration to act," they said in a statement. "Today's decision is a momentous victory for the rule of law, for human rights, and for our democracy."
Green's 75-page opinion was the unclassified version and stemmed from 11 cases involving Guantanamo prisoners.
Her ruling probably will not be the final word on the issue. A different federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 19 dismissed the cases of seven Guantanamo prisoners on the grounds they had no recognizable constitutional rights and were subject to the military review process.
The cases could be appealed to the U.S. appeals court, and then ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites). (Additional reporting by Deborah Charles)
That was rather harsh. Perhaps you forgot the smiley tag at the end?
If you do some research on her, she really isn't anti-American at all. Don't worry, it'll get up to the Supreme Court - then you can worry.
She never worked for Carter, never knew him. She doesn't know who suggested she be appointed. Let's try to be fair here.
Where do you hear this. On DU?
The detainees have rights, of course. But those rights are not the same as conferred upon a US citizen as a birthright. They are much more circumscribed. For instance, there is no right to speedy trial, or even any trial at all. Failure to identify their personal relationship with the recognized authority of another country, whether as a citizen or as a legal resident, tends to place them in the status of a stateless person, and there is no provision for repatriating them anywhere. However, it is obvious that they have a certain degree of animus toward the US, and it is against public order to permit them freedom in the absence of any assurance they have recanted their earlier belligerence.
I suppose we should not apply physically painful inpositions upon them, in an attempt to get them to confess, especially to something that was basically untrue, or starve them, or deny at least some respite from uncomfortable conditions.
Making fun of people is DUish, IMO.
Gee I didn't know there was a "Bill of Rights" for un-uniformed, non American terrorist killers captured bearing arms against and killing American soldiers.
Who hide among civilians and wait for the appropriate time to kill as many as possible. They abide by no rules of war and represent no country or government.
I would gladly go to a class if this idiot judge can show me the phrases of The Constitution which grant these rights. After all her oath of office says she will defend the Constitution against all enemies, both domestic and foreign.
Opps! I guess that means her, seems she will have to resign to honor her oath of office. She is the enemy.
Just got word that a FReeper friend of mine's son lost a buddy in Iraq. I get very angry at these liberal know-it-alls who're not fit to lick a soldier's boots.
I stand corrected.
""In sum, there can be no question that the Fifth Amendment right asserted by the Guantanamo detainees in this litigation -- the right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law -- is one of the most fundamental rights recognized by the U.S. Constitution," she said. "
I'm not a lawyer, however, this does not prevent me from declaring her a dumb twit.
The prisoners are not citizens. They were captured on a field of battle. They were not fighting for a recognized government or in a uniform (per Geneva). Thus, they are not even guaranteed Convention treatment, let alone constitutional treatment.
Moreover, as 1 post had it - jurisdiction. I am not certain she has authority to rule.
As Andy Jackson said, "the court has ruled, not let them enforce it!"
You forgot panties on the head (a fate worse than death!)
Certainly they have rights. They had the right to decide to attack and kill Iraqis and American troops and to attempt to destabilize any effort to bring peace to Iraq. They could have chosen to side with freedom and would not have found themselves in prison in Cuba. They had rights, they exercised those rights and in the process of doing so waived other rights.
"If you do some research on her, she really isn't anti-American at all. Don't worry, it'll get up to the Supreme Court - then you can worry"
I think you addressed that to the wrong person? LOL
I have no idea of whom you are speaking about? LOL
These scum cannot apply to the Geneva Convention....they are terrorists. Judge Green's attempted legislation from the bench will fail.
This is a sure winner on appeal.
So is this judge - Joyce Hens Green - saying that everyone on this earth is entitled to the protections of the United States Constitution? I'm sure this will be overturned.
The case which this judge spits on, is In re Quirin. Since later Supreme Court decisions have confirmed that Quirin is good law, this wrong and false decision WILL be slapped down on appeal. Unfortunately, there is no way also to slap down the judge herself.
Congressman Billybob [TWO different columns this week]
Click for latest, "Homer, Shakespeare, Pope, and George Bush"
Carter appointee.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.