The imminent start of war-crimes trials at Guantanamo Bay was thrown into doubt Thursday when the Supreme Court ruled that detainees have constitutional rights and can appeal to civilian courts.
Attorneys for an alleged Sept. 11 plotter and for Osama bin Laden's former driver told The Associated Press they would use the ruling to argue that charges against their clients should be dismissed.
Navy Lt. Cmdr. Brian Mizer said he would try to stop the first scheduled war-crimes trial, to start July 14, by arguing his client was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. He is defending bin Laden's former driver, Salim Hamdan, a Yemeni held at Guantanamo Bay for six years.
"The entire legal framework under which Mr. Hamdan was to be tried has been turned on its head," Mizer said.
The ruling also could have far-reaching consequences for the five alleged Sept. 11 conspirators, who were arraigned at Guantanamo last week. Navy Cmdr. Suzanne Lachelier, the attorney for suspect Ramzi Binalshibh, said she will use the ruling to seek the dismissal of charges.
"The whole purpose of the administration was to evade application of the Constitution. Apparently that doesn't work anymore," she said.
The Pentagon had no immediate comment on the Supreme Court ruling, but President Bush said he would determine whether new legislation "might be appropriate" in response. The trials operate under a law passed by a Republican-controlled Congress in 2006, but Congress is now controlled by the Democrats.
Attorney General Michael Mukasey said the ruling would not affect the Guantanamo trials against enemy combatants.
"I'm disappointed with the decision, in so far as I understand that it will result in hundreds of actions challenging the detention of enemy combatants to be moved to federal district court," Mukasey said at a Group of Eight meeting of justice and home affairs ministers Friday in Tokyo.
"I think it bears emphasis that the court's decision does not concern military commission trials, which will continue to proceed. Instead it addresses the procedures that the Congress and the president put in place to permit enemy combatants to challenge their detention."
"Obviously we're going to comply with the decision, we're going to study both the decision itself and whether any legislation or any other action may be appropriate."
U.S. officials have said the military can hold enemy fighters without charge for the duration of the conflict to protect the United States and its allies. In this case, the conflict is the war on terror, which could last generations.
"I believe the drafters of the Constitution would be turning over in their graves to find out that people intent on destroying our society have constitutional rights," said Air Force Col. Morris Davis, the former chief military prosecutor at Guantanamo who resigned in October amid disagreements with his Pentagon superiors.
Bush authorized war-crimes trials in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, but more than six years later not a single one has been held. One Guantanamo detainee, David Hicks, accepted a plea bargain in 2007, served nine months and is now free in his native Australia.
The process has been mired in confusion over procedures and temporarily halted by two previous Supreme Court rulings. This third ruling threatens further delays because it allows defendants to turn to civilian courts to challenge whether the military tribunals have the authority to try them.
"The Bush administration has had three strikes in the U.S. courts - and they're out," said Clive Stafford Smith, an attorney for Guantanamo detainees. "But the prisoners still have a long way to go."
Some 270 men are at Guantanamo, from committed jihadists such as confessed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to Taliban foot soldiers to men who were sold to U.S. forces for bounties and who proclaim their innocence.
While the new ruling threatens to delay the military trials, it does not necessarily deal them a fatal blow, said David Glazier, an associate professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.
"I think it makes it more likely than not that no trials will be complete by the time of the November election," Glazier said.
He said military judges may go ahead with the war-crimes trials while detainees' challenges move through federal courts, unless a federal judge tells them to wait. But he said some military judges may choose to wait, especially if they believe the defense could prevail in civilian court.
But Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said it was unclear whether the 19 detainees who have been charged with war crimes can challenge their trials now, or whether they need to wait until their trials are over to appeal to civilian courts. He said judges typically favor the latter.
The Pentagon has said it plans to prosecute about 80 prisoners in all. Many of the other 190 or so remaining have been cleared for transfer to their home countries but languish behind bars because the U.S. has been unable to secure repatriation agreements.
Lawyers say the U.S. may now push harder to repatriate them to avoid more challenges in civilian courts.
"The government doesn't want a factual hearing because it will have to show its hand and will have to show it's been bluffing all these years and doesn't have any evidence," said Marc Falkoff, a Chicago attorney who represents Guantanamo prisoners.
The fate of the detention center itself seems bleak, since Barack Obama and John McCain both have called for the its closure.
(From the AP)
*****
Interesting?! Isn't it.
