Justices rule terror suspects can appeal in civilian courts

Foreign terrorism suspects held at the Guantánamo Bay naval base in Cuba have constitutional rights to challenge their detention there in United States courts, the Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 4, on June 12 in a historic decision on the balance between personal liberties and national security. "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court. The justices rejected the Bush administration's argument that the individual protections provided by the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 were more than adequate. "The costs of delay can no longer be borne by those who are held in custody," Justice Kennedy wrote. Joining Justice Kennedy's opinion were Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter. The dissenters were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, generally considered the conservative wing on the court. Justice Scalia, in his dissenting opinion, said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." Souter wrote a separate opinion in which he emphasized the length of the detentions. "A second fact insufficiently appreciated by the dissents is the length of the disputed imprisonments, some of the prisoners represented here today having been locked up for six years," Souter said. "Hence the hollow ring when the dissenters suggest that the court is somehow precipitating the judiciary into reviewing claims that the military... could handle within some reasonable period of time." The 2006 Military Commission Act stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions filed by detainees challenging the bases for their confinement. That law was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in February 2007. At issue were the "combatant status review tribunals," made up of military officers, that the administration set up to validate the initial determination that a detainee deserved to be labeled an "enemy combatant." The military assigns a "personal representative" to each detainee, but defense lawyers may not take part. Nor are the tribunals required to disclose to the detainee details of the evidence or witnesses against him–rights that have long been enjoyed by defendants in American civilian and military courts. Under the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, detainees may appeal decisions of the military tribunals to the District of Columbia Circuit, but only under circumscribed procedures, which include a presumption that the evidence before the military tribunal was accurate and complete. In the years-long debate over the treatment of detainees, some critics of administration policy have asserted that those held at Guantánamo have fewer rights than people accused of crimes under American civilian and military law and that they are trapped in a sort of legal limbo. The man who gave the case (Boumediene v. Bush) its title, Lakhdar Boumediene, is one of six Algerians who immigrated to Bosnia in the 1990's and were legal residents there. They were arrested by Bosnian police within weeks of the Sept. 11 attacks on suspicion of plotting to attack the United States embassy in Sarajevo–"plucked from their homes, from their wives and children," as their lawyer, Seth P. Waxman, a former solicitor general put it in the argument before the justices on Dec. 5. The Supreme Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina ordered them released three months later for lack of evidence, whereupon the Bosnian police seized them and turned them over to the United States military, which sent them to Guantánamo. Waxman argued before the United States Supreme Court that the six Algerians did not fit any authorized definition of enemy combatant, and therefore ought to be released. The White House had no immediate comment on the ruling. White House press secretary Dana Perino, traveling with President Bush in Rome, said the administration was reviewing the opinion. It was not immediately clear whether this ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for the detainees, some of whom have been held more than 6 years. The ruling could resurrect many detainee lawsuits that federal judges put on hold pending the outcome of the high court case. The decision sent judges, law clerks and court administrators scrambling to read Kennedy's 70-page opinion and figure out how to proceed. Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth said he would call a special meeting of federal judges to address how to handle the cases. The head of the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents dozens of prisoners at Guantanamo, welcomed the ruling. "The Supreme Court has finally brought an end to one of our nation's most egregious injustices," said CCR Executive Director Vincent Warren. "By granting the writ of habeas corpus, the Supreme Court recognizes a rule of law established hundreds of years ago and essential to American jurisprudence since our nation's founding." John McCain lambasted the court's decision to grant greater rights to prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, aligning himself with President Bush at a time when the unpopular president is seen as a political liability to his would-be Republican successor. Both men essentially condemned the top court's ruling. Bush said he disagreed with it, and McCain -- sharpening his original reaction -- said it would make US citizens and military personnel less safe. "The United States Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country," McCain said.