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)
Another stinking liberal activist judge! Recall the bitch!
Yes, they do.
The RIGHT to choose:
Choice A
1. 230gr .45acp
Choice B
2. 185gr 30.06
Choice C
3. 500gr .50cal
Choice D
4. 1000 lb bomb (for group usage only!)
Easy there tiger...you're starting to sound a little like the DU people.
Judges like this need to be arrested and placed in Guantonomo. because as surely as I sit here writing this post if we turn these prisoners loose they will go out and murder inocent people. Its just too bad we cant move them in next to her beautiful country place.
Remember this:
If America ever falls, a/the LIBERAL(s) will have had a MAJOR part in it. Once you realize that, you can see how stupid liberal judges who rule like this really are.
We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights...
So yes they do have Constitutionally protected rights. But every one of those rights can be removed with DUE PROCESS in a court of law. So try them before a jury of those they have victimized and if they are guilty, hang em high.
Don't need to go that far. The Judge went outside of her sphere of control...It will get overturned. Have faith.
President Jimmy Carter appointed Judge Green to the DC District Court in 1979. http://www.innsofcourt.org/contentviewer.asp?breadcrumb=6,123,125,1280
You forget e: all of the above
In this instance, I wish this idiot judge would please take her concerns for Human Rights and Due Process to Iraq - Maybe she could convince the Terrorists of their victims rights in this regard and thereby end the beheadings.IMO She's in an insulated cocoon, isolated from reality.
Better yet, shoot the detainees and there's no more problem. If they were from any particular country and wore a uniform, we couldn't do that, but they're not and they don't so we can.
We have GOT to get rid of these people!!! Activist judges have NO place in our legal system.
She reminds me of the secretary from the Beverly Hillbillies show with some extra lbs and worse hair.
She's been around a long time. Just because you disagree with her ruling doesn't mean you should call her names. That's a little immature, don't you think?
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.