[News] U.S. Judge Halts War-Crime Trial at Guantánamo

Tue Nov 9 08:54:25 EST 2004

November 9, 2004

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/09/politics/09gitmo.html

U.S. Judge Halts War-Crime Trial at Guantánamo

By NEIL A. LEWIS

29c5f8.jpg
UANTÁNAMO BAY, Cuba, Nov. 8 - A federal judge ruled Monday that President 
Bush had both overstepped his constitutional bounds and improperly brushed 
aside the Geneva Conventions in establishing military commissions to try 
detainees at the United States naval base here as war criminals.

The ruling by Judge James Robertson of United States District Court in 
Washington brought an abrupt halt to the trial here of one detainee, one of 
hundreds being held at Guantánamo as enemy combatants. It threw into doubt 
the future of the first set of United States military commission trials 
since the end of World War II as well as other legal proceedings devised by 
the administration to deal with suspected terrorists.

The administration reacted quickly, saying it would seek an emergency stay 
and a quick appeal.

Judge Robertson ruled against the government in the case of Salim Ahmed 
Hamdan, a former driver for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan who is facing 
terrorism charges. Mr. Hamdan's lawyers had asked the court to declare the 
military commission process fatally flawed.

The ruling and its timing had a theatrical effect on the courtroom here 
where pretrial proceedings were under way with Mr. Hamdan, a 34-year-old 
Yemeni in a flowing white robe, seated next to his lawyers.

About 30 minutes into the afternoon proceedings, the presiding officer, 
Col. Peter S. Brownback III, was handed a note from a Marine sergeant. 
Colonel Brownback immediately called a recess and rushed from the room with 
the commission's two other officers. When he returned, he announced that 
the proceeding was in recess indefinitely and he departed quickly.

Neal K. Katyal, a Georgetown Law School professor who is one of Mr. 
Hamdan's lawyers and who supervised the federal lawsuit, told the puzzled 
courtroom audience, "We won."

Mark Corallo, a Justice Department spokesman, said in a statement, "The 
process struck down by the district court today was carefully crafted to 
protect America from terrorists while affording those charged with 
violations of the laws of war with fair process, and the department will 
make every effort to have this process restored through appeal."

Mr. Corallo said, "By conferring protected legal status under the Geneva 
Conventions on members of Al Qaeda, the judge has put terrorism on the same 
legal footing as legitimate methods of waging war."

Judge Robertson ruled that the administration could not under current 
circumstances try Mr. Hamdan before the military commissions set up shortly 
after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks but could only bring him before a 
court-martial, where different rules of evidence apply.

In the 45-page ruling, the judge said the administration had ignored a 
basic provision of the Geneva Conventions, the international treaties 
signed by the United States that form the basic elements of the laws 
governing the conduct of war.

The conventions oblige the United States to treat Mr. Hamdan as a prisoner 
of war, the judge said , unless he goes before a special tribunal described 
in Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention that determines he is not. A 
P.O.W. is entitled to a court-martial if there are accusations of war 
crimes but may not be tried before a military commission.

The United States military did not conduct Article 5 tribunals at the end 
of the Afghanistan war, saying they were unnecessary. Government lawyers 
argued that the president had already used his authority to deem members of 
Al Qaeda unlawful combatants who would be deprived of P.O.W. status.

But Judge Robertson, who was nominated to be on the court by President Bill 
Clinton, said that that was not enough. "The president is not a panel," he 
wrote. "The law of war includes the Third Geneva Convention, which requires 
trial by court-martial as long as Hamdan's P.O.W. status is in doubt."

The government is in the midst of conducting a separate set of tribunals 
here at Guantánamo, similar to those required by the Geneva Conventions, to 
determine whether detainees were properly deemed unlawful enemy combatants. 
Those proceedings, called combatant status review tribunals, were quickly 
put into place by the Bush administration after the Supreme Court's ruling 
in June that the Guantánamo prisoners were entitled to challenge their 
detentions in federal court. Judge Robertson said, however, that those 
tribunals were not designed to satisfy the Geneva Convention requirement 
and were insufficient.

The ruling on Monday may also make those tribunals obsolete, but Scott L. 
Silliman, professor of military law at Duke University, said the military 
might modify them to fit the Geneva Convention requirements.

The judge also said that in asserting that the Guantánamo prisoners are 
unlawful combatants and outside the reach of the Geneva Conventions, "the 
government has asserted a position starkly different from the positions and 
behavior of the United States in previous conflicts, one that can only 
weaken the United States' own ability to demand application of the Geneva 
applications to Americans captured during armed conflicts abroad."

Professor Katyal told reporters that while the ruling on Monday applied 
only to the Hamdan case, "the spirit of the ruling extends more broadly, 
perhaps to everything that is going on here in Guantánamo Bay."

Mr. Hamdan is one of about 63 Guantánamo detainees on whose behalf lawsuits 
have been filed in federal court. The lawsuits consist of habeas corpus 
petitions, in which people may demand that the government provide some 
explanation as to why they are imprisoned.

Critics have said that the military commissions fall short of the rights 
that defendants have in courts-martial in two respects. But Judge Robertson 
said that one of those reasons, the inability to appeal to the federal 
judiciary, was not a serious problem. The principal problem, he said, was 
that defendants before commissions did not have a fair opportunity to 
respond to charges because some of the evidence was classified and would be 
withheld. He said that no American court could approve of any proceeding 
that had such a glaring lack of the right to confront one's accusers and 
the evidence.

Stephen Saltzburg, a professor at the George Washington University Law 
School, said it was inevitable that a federal judge somewhere would find 
fault with the administration's approach "that you can keep people locked 
up for two and three years and you still don't really know who they are and 
why we're keeping them."

Professor Saltzburg also said the ruling could set up a sharp confrontation 
between the judiciary and the executive branch. "No president, Democrat or 
Republican, is going to welcome the idea that judges who sit in Washington 
are going to supervise who is detained on the battlefield," he said.

Capt. Brian Thompson of the Air Force, who is defending one of the other 
three detainees who have been charged with war crimes before a military 
commission, said he was confident that Judge Robertson's ruling would apply 
to his client as well. "Not in a strict legal sense," he said, "but 
certainly in a practical sense."

Commission officials said they were considering whether to halt action on 
the other cases as well.

The Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
(415) 863-9977
www.freedomarchives.org 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20041109/d2e83c8b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 29c5f8.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2813 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20041109/d2e83c8b/attachment.jpg>