US
Supreme Court For Human Rights
By James Vicini
29 June, 2004
Reuters
The U.S. Supreme Court severely limited
the Bush administration's war on terrorism on Monday and allowed cases
brought by terror suspects challenging their confinement to proceed
in the American legal system.
The surprising moves
by the high court came in a series of term-ending decisions that pitted
civil liberties concerns against national security arguments and marked
a blow to President Bush's assertion of sweeping presidential powers
after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
In one ruling the
court said the hundreds of foreign terror suspects at the U.S. military
base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba could turn to American courts to challenge
their confinement. In another ruling it said an American held in his
nation is entitled to procedural protections to contest his detention.
"Today's historic
rulings are a strong repudiation of the administration's argument that
its actions in the war on terrorism are beyond the rule of law and unreviewable
by American courts," Steven Shapiro of the American Civil Liberties
Union said.
Michael Ratner of
the Center for Constitutional Rights, which brought the Guantanamo case,
said, "This is a major victory for the rule of law and affirms
the right of every person, citizen or noncitizen, detained by the United
States to test the legality of his or her detention in a U.S. court."
By a 6-3 vote, the
justices ruled American courts do have jurisdiction to consider the
claims of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners who said in their lawsuits they
were being held illegally in violation of their rights.
"What is presently
at stake is only whether the federal courts have jurisdiction to determine
the legality of the executive's potentially indefinite detention of
individuals who claim to be wholly innocent of wrongdoing," Justice
John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
The ruling did not
address the merits of the claims, but allowed the prisoners to pursue
their lawsuits, which lower courts had dismissed.
Even though the
Supreme Court ruled that federal courts have jurisdiction, the detainees
still could face a long legal battle to prove their claims and to win
their release or major changes in the conditions of their confinement.
In the second, more
complicated ruling, the court divided by a 5-4 vote to rule that Bush
has the power to detain American citizen Yaser Hamdi, who was captured
in Afghanistan as a suspected Taliban fighter and who has been held
in a U.S. military jail.
But in the more
important part of the ruling, the justices by an 8-1 vote ruled he should
get a fair opportunity to rebut the government's case for detaining
him.
Bush's policies
have been attacked by civil liberties and human rights groups, especially
after recent revelations of U.S. abuse of Iraqi prisoners and questions
on whether the U.S. government sought to condone torture during interrogations
of terror suspects.
Some 595 foreign
nationals, designated "enemy combatants," are being held at
the base in Cuba as suspected al Qaeda members or Taliban fighters.
Most of those at
Guantanamo were seized during the U.S.-led campaign against the Taliban
government in Afghanistan and against Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network
after the Sept. 11 attacks. The first detainees arrived in January 2002.
All but a handful
of those at the base are being held without being charged, without access
to lawyers or their families and without access to courts or a proceeding
of any kind.
In the Hamdi case,
the court said the U.S. Congress authorized the detention of combatants
in the narrow circumstances alleged in the case, but that he could challenge
his detention -- a position at odds with what the Bush administration
argued.
At least two court
members -- Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- would have
released Hamdi immediately.
They joined the
main opinion by four other justices who said Hamdi should have a meaningful
opportunity to offer evidence that he is not an enemy combatant.
The four, in an
opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, said constitutional
due process rights demand that a citizen held in the United States as
an enemy combatant must be given "a meaningful opportunity"
to contest the basis for the detention before a neutral party.
In a third ruling,
the court decided the case of terror suspect Jose Padilla on narrow
procedural grounds, ruling he should have brought the challenge in South
Carolina instead of New York, a decision that sidestepped whether Bush
has the power to detain him.
© Copyright
2004, Reuters Ltd