Supreme Court Declines to Hear Case Over Terrorism-Related Detentions

AP ^ | 5-19-2003 | Anne Gearan

[Cagey]

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court turned away an appeal Monday over detention of hundreds of U.S. prisoners picked up in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

The court did not comment in rejecting an appeal from clergy, lawyers and others who wanted to go to court on behalf of the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without charges or access to lawyers.

Lower federal courts had blocked the legal challenge on grounds that the clergy group did not have legal standing.

The clergy group sued President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others last year.

"The United States government violated basic principles of international human rights law in forcibly removing prisoners of war from Afghanistan, transporting them to Guantanamo, and holding them indefinitely in small outdoor cages," the clergy group alleged.

The suit claimed the prisoners were deprived of their liberty and have not been informed of the accusations against them, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

The coalition demanded that the government provide the prisoners with lawyers, bring them before a U.S. court, acknowledge their identities and define the charges against them. The detainees are from some 36 countries.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to address the merits of those complaints.

To have standing to represent the detainees in court, the San Francisco-based federal appeals court said, the coalition would need to have had a preexisting relationship with the detainees or prove that the prisoners had mental defects.

The court declined to rule on whether individual prisoners could bring cases.

The government says federal courts have no power over U.S. military policy carried out in a foreign nation as part of the nation's war on terrorism.

The detainees began arriving at the U.S. naval base in Cuba in January 2002. As of this month, about 645 prisoners from more than three dozen countries were held there. The government refuses to identify them or their countries or say exactly how many there are.

Several prisoners have been freed, and American officials say they are moving quickly to sort out the remaining cases. Eventually, some prisoners may be tried for terrorism activities before military tribunals.

The United States has long said that some prisoners could be released to their countries if it were certain their governments would deal with them properly.

The case is Coalition of clergy, Lawyers and Professors v. Bush, 02-1155.

[Beck_isright]

Hmmm, what about American citizens being detained?

[CedarDave]

The suit claimed the prisoners were deprived of their liberty and have not been informed of the accusations against them, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Better these deprived of their "liberty" than innocent men, women, children deprived of their lives. This is a no-brainer.

(p.s. Looks like this started with the 9th Circuit Court, which is in San Francisco. Surprise, surprise!!)

[HiJinx]

RELEASE/TRANSFER OF DETAINEES COMPLETED

The Department of Defense announced today the release of one detainee from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the transfer of four Saudi detainees for continued detention by the Government of Saudi Arabia, on May 14, 2003.

Senior leadership of the Department of Defense, in consultation with other senior U.S. government officials, determined that these detainees either no longer posed a threat to U.S. security or no longer required detention by the United States.

Transfer or release of detainees can be based on many factors, including law enforcement, intelligence, as well as whether the individual would pose a threat to the United States. At the time of their detention, these enemy combatants posed a threat to U.S. security.

In general terms, the reasons detainees may be released are based on the nature of the continuing threat they may pose to U.S. security.

During the course of the War on Terrorism, we expect that there will be other transfers or releases of detainees. Because of operational security considerations, no further details will be available.

Source: www.defendamerica.mil

[b4its2late]

"The United States government violated basic principles of international human rights law in forcibly removing prisoners of war from Afghanistan, transporting them to Guantanamo, and holding them indefinitely in small outdoor cages," the clergy group alleged.

They should've been put in small glass cages. Soon after sun up, the cage would be ready for the next round of prisoners.

[monkeywrench]

Notice, the 9th circus lefties turned this down.

Now, notice the wording, here, "The United States government violated basic principles of international human rights law in forcibly removing prisoners of war from Afghanistan, transporting them to Guantanamo, and holding them indefinitely in small outdoor cages," the clergy group alleged"

They will, now take this to the new international court. They aren't interested in helping Americans, only in prosecuting Americans internationally.

[hoosier_scientist]

Does anyone have a link to the members of this "coalition of lawyers, clergy, and professionals"? I am interested in what clergy are a part of this.

[nicmarlo]

FYI ping.

[nicmarlo]

Here, from this link (it only takes you to PDF, so I had to type out the names): Ninth Circus (type in short name below to search; I couldn't post link to pdf page)

Date Filed: 11/18/02
Case No.: 02-55367
Short Name: COALITION OF CLERGY V BUSH

Appeal from the United States District Court, Central District of California,
A Howard Matz, District Judge, Presiding

Coalition of Clergy, Lawyers, and Professors; Haim Dov Beliak; Robert A. Berger; Kathryn S. Bloomfield; Erwin Chemerinsky; Ramsey Clark; Allen Freehling; Steven Jacobs; Harold S. Lewis, Jr.; Hugh R. Manes, Arthur L. Argolis; Kenneth B. Noble; George Regas; Joseph Reichman; Lawrencen W. Schilling; Carol A. Watson; Marion R. Yagman; Stephen Yagman, on behalf of persons held involuntarily at Guantanamo Naval Air Base, Cuba, Petitioners-Appellants,

v.

George Walker Bush; Donald H. Rumsfeld; Richard B. Myers; Gordon R. England; James L. Jones; Robert A. Buehn; Michael Fair; Ellen Mustain; Michael Lehnert, Respondents-Appellees.

Members of the Coalition include: Rabbi Haim Dov Beliak, Prof. Robert A. Berger, Kathryn S. Bloomfield, Esq., Prof. Erwin Chemerinsky, Ramsey Clark, Esq., Rabbi Allen Freehling, Rabbit Steven Jacobs, Prof. Harold S. Lewis, Jr., Hugh R. Manes, Esq., Arthur L. Margolis, Esq., Prof. Kenneth B. Noble, Rev. George Regas, Joseph Reichman, Esq., Lawrence W. Schilling, Esq., Carol A. Watson, Esq., Marion R. Yagman, Esq., and Stephen Yagman, Esq.

[MeekOneGOP]

Thanks. Interesting article.

[nicmarlo]

Here's a related article: Relief Denied

Washington—The story of the Guantanamo Bay detainees seized in the U.S.-Afghan war is a story of how nothing happens, says an American lawyer. Nothing happens, says a British jurist, because the detainees occupy a "legal black hole."

But two cases, one pending in the U.S. Supreme Court and the other likely to get there this year, attempt to make something happen legally for the roughly 700 prisoners being held at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. Some have been held for more than a year and without charges or access to counsel.

Two other cases in the courts involve U.S. citizens held without charges in U.S. brigs for their alleged roles in terrorism. The four cases challenge federal judges to examine the scope of their jurisdiction, the limits of executive authority and the weight, if any, to be given to international obligations.

[snip]

[nicmarlo]

Especially since Ramsey Clark (Scott Ritter's friend, too), head of A.N.S.W.E.R, I believe!

[cake_crumb]

" 'The United States government violated basic principles of international human rights law in forcibly removing prisoners of war from Afghanistan, transporting them to Guantanamo, and holding them indefinitely in small outdoor cages,' the clergy group alleged."

They aren't prisoners of war. They were unlawful combatants and not uniformed soldiers of a foreign army. We should be sending Syrian, Iranian, Jordanian, Saudi, Pali etc. jihadis from Iraq over to Gitmo too.

[Beck_isright]

"They will, now take this to the new international court. They aren't interested in helping Americans, only in prosecuting Americans internationally."

Gee, does this mean all my friends and I have to worry about killing Iraqis in 91 now too?

[dljordan]

So you think it's ok to ignore the Bill of Rights when it's expedient? Or does it just apply to SOME people (people we agree with)? You either follow the rules or you don't. Which is it?

[CyberAnt]

Hmmmm? What planet are these people living on ...??

The "terrorists" are NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS. We are not required to give the terrorists the same rights.

And ... as far as I know - there are no American citizens at the Cuba prison.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

The prisoners at Gitmo have been afforded due process in conformance with the international law of war for illegal combatants apprehended on the field of battle. Where's the beef?

[No Truce With Kings]

"So you think it's ok to ignore the Bill of Rights when it's expedient? Or does it just apply to SOME people (people we agree with)? You either follow the rules or you don't. Which is it?"

Uhhh. . . .

The guys at Gitmo are combatants. They surrendered to US or allied forces on the battlefield while bearing arms against the US or its allies. Rules of war allow you to hold P.O.W.s until the end of a conflict. The conflict (War on Terror) is ongoing. The Battle of Afghanistan is ongoing, too. Doesn't matter whether they are legal or illegal combatants, they can be held until the termination of hostilities.

The guys at Gitmo are likely illegal combatants. An illegal combatant is one that wages war outside a governmental organization, with no chain-of-command, no assigned ranks, and are bearing arms for personal reasons -- whether for gain (piracy) or simply vengence (terrorism), or some combination of both. According to the rules of war, illegal combatants are the common enemy of mankind, and may be held indefinately or killed out of hand.

Those held at Gitmo are not American citizens, were not taken on American soil, are not being held on American soil and were captured by US (or allied) forces during combat operations. They are therefore subject to American military law, not American civil law.

POWs -- legal or illegal -- can be tried for crimes that they have committed (before or after capture) using either martial or civil law at the discretion of the power holding them.

Habeas Corpus, right to speedy trial, etc. apply only to cases heard under US civil law during times of peace. The Federal Government can legally suspend Habeas Corpus in a wartime situation.

In short -- the Bill of Rights is not being ignored. It is being scrupulously followed -- including being scrupulous about when it is applicable. So, we *are* following the rules.

[CedarDave]

The prisoners at Gitmo have been afforded due process in conformance with the international law of war for illegal combatants apprehended on the field of battle. Where's the beef?

None from me. We are just required to provide humane treatment to them. Others apparently believe they are entitled to all the same rights and privledges as American citizens, which, of course, they aren't.

[AIC]

I need to get a law license. Even I know that a foreigner does not have citizens rights from the U.S. concering the U.S. constitution. These guys must be making easy money from somebody. Fooling someone. I wonder how much is charged for writing and putting in a motion to a court.