TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

High Court Divided Over Detainee Rights

ADVERTISEMENT

By ROBERT BARNES, The Washington Post

Published: December 6, 2007

WASHINGTON - Detainees held for nearly six years at the Guantanamo Bay military prison got another hearing at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, but the justices appeared to remain divided about whether the prisoners deserve a more basic right to challenge their imprisonment before a judge.

At issue is whether the detainees have a constitutional guarantee of the writ of habeas corpus, the ability to try to prove before an independent judge that they are unlawfully held. If so, the court faces the question of whether the alternative military tribunals created by the Bush administration and Congress - which provide a limited role for the federal courts - are an adequate substitute.

It is a case that raises profound questions of the separation of powers and the role of the federal courts during wartime. The scene at the court was befitting of such a moment: protesters in orange jumpsuits demonstrated outside against Bush administration policies, and more than 70 people spent the night in line to get a place in the courtroom.

Some Seek Practical Fix

The nearly 1 1/2 hour argument was short on soaring rhetoric and longer on the search by some justices - particularly Justice Anthony Kennedy, likely the pivotal vote - for practical remedies. Those justices seemed to acknowledge that the detainees deserved more independent review than they now receive, but unsure of how it could be provided.
Solicitor General Paul Clement seemed mindful of the court's previous rulings criticizing the Bush administration's policies toward terrorism detainees. He appealed to the justices to respect "the best efforts of the political branches, both political branches," to balance the interests of the prisoners to challenge their detention with the administration's prerogatives to "successfully prosecute the global war on terror."

He said worries about the adequacy of the military tribunals that hear the detainee cases could be fixed, and even suggested for the first time that there was nothing in the law that would keep federal judges from freeing suspects if the court found detention was not warranted. Attorneys for the detainees said they had not heard the government make such a concession before.

Rules Called 'Kafka-Esque'

Seth Waxman, who held Clement's job as the government's top lawyer before the court during the Clinton administration and now represents the detainees, said procedures established by the president and Congress include "Kafka-esque" rules.

The proceedings thwart the goal of determining who among the approximately 300 men held at Guantanamo are legitimate enemies of the United States and who were innocently swept up in the rush to protect the country from terrorism, he said.

A fundamental quality of habeas proceedings is speed, he said.

"These 37 men," Waxman said, referring to the specific plaintiffs in the two cases, Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. United States, "have been held in isolation for nearly six years."

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr. were the most skeptical of Waxman's arguments.

Scalia asked Waxman if he could name "one single case" during the nation's history, or in 500 years of English law, that would extend the writ to foreigners detained outside the country.

Waxman responded that the answer was a "resounding yes," but nothing he produced satisfied Scalia, who repeatedly returned to the question.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, however, referred to a 2004 ruling by the court when she said, "I thought this was decided in Rasul." In Rasul v. Bush, the court held that the reach of the federal courts extended to the military prison in Cuba.

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT