US judges reject appeal by Guantánamo inmates

The US Supreme Court rejected an appeal on Apr. 2 from Guantánamo Bay detainees who claimed they were denied key rights under the Bush administration's controversial anti-terrorist strategy. None of the roughly 385 detainees has yet had a hearing in a civilian court challenging his detention because the administration has moved aggressively to limit the legal rights of prisoners it has labeled as "enemy combatants." To the dismay of human rights lawyers, the Supreme Court narrowly decided against hearing two appeals by prisoners on the matter. At issue was whether prisoners held at Guantánamo have a right to habeas corpus review, a basic tenet of the US Constitution that protects people from unlawful imprisonment. The detainees' core argument was that no matter where they are held by US authorities, they are entitled to access to the courts. They wanted the Supreme Court to strike down the new law as unconstitutional. The court said it would not rule on the matter. Three of the court's nine justices strongly dissented against the decision. One of them, Justice Stephen Bryer, said: "The questions presented are significant ones warranting our review." It takes four votes among the nine justices to accept a case. "This is a perfect example of justice delayed is justice denied," said Washington lawyer Tom Wilner, who has represented Guantánamo detainees since May 2002. Michael Ratner, the president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said: "We're disappointed and for us this is a delay that is unconscionable." Former military officers, diplomats and federal judges joined the detainees in urging the court to take prompt action. The court "held in no uncertain terms that the Guantánamo detainees were entitled to habeas corpus review to challenge the lawfulness of their detention," they said in their supporting brief. But the administration said that because of changes in the law since 2004 there was no need for the court to hear the case. Congress has approved military hearings to assess whether the prisoners are being properly detained as enemy combatants. Those decisions can be appealed in a limited fashion to the US court of appeals. "There is no need for this court to assess the adequacy of the... review before it has taken place," the solicitor, General Paul Clement, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, wrote. The court is likely to be faced with the same cases it rejected once the appeals court begins conducting reviews. The Supreme Court has twice thwarted the administration's efforts to keep the detainees out of the courts. The Bush administration has reacted to each of the two previous rebuffs by undertaking remedial measures. In 2004, the justices ruled that the courts can hear the detainees' cases, saying that prisoners under US control have access to civilian courts, no matter where they are being held. In 2006, the justices ruled that President Bush's plan for military war crimes trials, envisioned for a small number of Guantánamo Bay detainees, is illegal under US and international law. After the Supreme Court ruling in 2004, the Pentagon set up panels that reviewed whether each of the detainees had been correctly categorized as an "enemy combatant," and therefore not entitled to any legal rights. After the justices' ruling in 2006, Congress at the urging of the White House, enacted the law which blocked detainees from coming into US courts and established new rules for the military trials. Sarah Teather, a member of the British parliament and lawyer for the Guantánamo prisoner, Jamil el-Banna, described the ruling as "depressing and worrying." She said: "If the Bush administration now moves to suspend protective orders for lawyers allowing them access to their clients in Guantánamo, we can expect to see conditions for prisoners deteriorate. The history of this US administration suggests that when the world is not watching, ethics go out of the window."