Terror detainees win right to sue
In two landmark cases, the court rules against President Bush, saying 'enemy combatants' should have access to US courts.
(Page 2 of 2)
The decisions come amid heightened national debate over alleged prisoner abuses in military detention facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The debate has been further fueled by leaked memos reflecting considerations within the Bush administration over the possible use of torture, disclosures that could not have helped the administration's efforts before the high court.Skip to next paragraph
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
"Before Abu Ghraib, the government was saying, 'Trust the executive, the other branches have no role,' " says Harold Koh, dean of Yale Law School. "Now the court responds, 'Yes, Congress must authorize and the courts must review.' "
Mr. Koh adds, "They've completely rejected the notion that the president should be allowed to handle this alone."
In the Hamdi case, the high court ruled 6 to 3 that Hamdi, a US citizen captured on an Afghanistan battlefield and ordered indefinitely detained within the US, must be provided a meaningful opportunity to challenge the government's action in a US court.
In the Guantánamo Bay case, the justices ruled 6 to 3 that foreign enemy combatants being held at the US naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, must be afforded the opportunity to challenge in US courts their open-ended detention.
The jurisdiction decision in the Padilla case overturns a ruling by the Second US Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City declaring that President Bush had no authority to order the indefinite detention of Padilla as an enemy combatant. The appeals court had ordered Padilla's release.
Padilla is suspected of plotting with Al Qaeda leaders to carry out a nuclear dirty-bomb attack or other acts of terror within the US. He was initially held under a material witness warrant in New York. But just as his appointed counsel arranged a court hearing on his behalf, Bush designated Padilla an enemy combatant, and he was transferred to a military brig near Charleston.
The decisions allow the Bush administration to continue to deal with those it considers enemy combatants but mandates that they must submit to judicial review.
Administration officials say its tactics - withholding access to lawyers and offering only limited court review - were necessary to facilitate successful interrogations and intelligence gathering that might prevent future terrorist attacks.
Critics view the administration's approach as having created a "legal black hole" in which to toss "enemy combatants," regardless of whether they are foreign nationals captured on a foreign battlefield or American citizens seized on American streets.
Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan in the fall of 2001 and held at the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. When US officials discovered that Hamdi, a Saudi citizen, had been born in the US and thus qualified for automatic US citizenship, he was transferred to a military brig in Virginia. He was later shifted to a brig in South Carolina.
A federal appeals court panel in Richmond upheld his open-ended detention and said that while he was entitled to challenge his confinement in a federal court, judges in such cases must be highly deferential to the concerns of the president.
In overturning the appeals court in the Hamdi case, the majority justices said Hamdi is entitled to a more complete and probing review of his case than authorized by the appeals court.
The Guantánamo Bay ruling is likely to trigger a barrage of legal challenges. It remains unclear what legal standards will apply and what relief a court may order.
Currently there are 595 foreign nationals being held in indefinite detention without charge at a specially built prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
Lawyers acting on behalf of 14 of the detainees - two Australians and 12 Kuwaitis - filed two lawsuits challenging the legality of their confinement, arguing that federal law, the Constitution, and international human rights agreements mandate that there be an appeal process to prevent the detention of innocent individuals.
A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., ruled that their cases could not be heard in US courts because federal judges lacked jurisdiction over foreign nationals being detained by the military outside the sovereign territory of the United States.
• Linda Feldmann contributed to this report.