Court Halts Guantanamo Prisoner Trial

Tuesday, November 09, 2004

WASHINGTON, Nov 9 (MASNET & News Agencies) - In a landmark opinion that could prevent military trials of alleged enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay, a U.S. federal court halted a controversial military trial involving Osama bin Laden's former driver.

The U.S. District Court in Washington, DC, suspended the military commission hearing of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a 34-year-old Yemeni, saying the process was unfair and Hamdan has not been properly detained, reports Agence France-Presse (AFP).

The Yemeni's trial was halted as the latest preliminary hearings in his case were held at Guantanamo Bay.

Judge James Robertson ruled the trial could not proceed until a decision has been made on whether Hamdan is a prisoner of war under the Geneva Conventions and until the rules are changed so Hamdan can see the evidence against him and be present at all proceedings, reports Reuters news agency.

Hamdan was declared an enemy combatant, a classification affording fewer legal protections under the Geneva Conventions, last month by a review tribunal during a hearing his lawyer was barred from, reports the Associated Press (AP).

Robertson said, "Unless and until a competent tribunal determines that Hamdan is not entitled to prisoner-of-war status, he may be tried with the offences for which he is charged only by court-martial" under the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

Robertson also said that restrictions prohibiting Hamdan from attending all sessions and hearing all of the evidence against him had to be amended to be in line with the military code of justice.

Hamdan has been held at the U.S. detention camp in Cuba since early 2002 alongside 550 other accused combatants captured in Afghanistan and other operations in the U.S. “war on terror” following the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Parallel to their defense before the commission, Hamdan's lawyers have also sought to have the hearings ruled illegal in U.S. courts through habeas corpus applications.

Robertson’s ruling also said Hamdan must be moved back from a special wing of the Guantanamo camp for detainees who face military commission hearings to the general population of detainees "unless some reason other than the pending charges against him requires different treatment."

But Robertson highlighted that his ruling gave only "limited relief" to Hamdan's application as no ruling was made on many other claims by Hamdan's defense team.

The U.S. military has said that Hamdan is a member of al-Qaeda who had been bin Laden's personal driver in Afghanistan before Hamdan was detained in late 2001.

He faces charges which include conspiracy to attack civilians and civilian targets, and conspiracy to commit murder and terrorist acts.

Hamdan has maintained he never supported terrorism, was not an al-Qaeda member and only earned a pittance driving bin Laden, reports the AP.

The Defense Department has faced mounting pressure over the legality of the military commissions since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that U.S. courts have jurisdiction over Guantanamo detainee cases.

"These commissions were intended for people like Osama bin Laden, not a mechanic who drove people around," said Hamdan's military-appointed defense lawyer, Lt. Cmdr. Charlie Swift, reports the AP. "The fact that we're doing this will taint the reputation of military justice for years to come."

Civil rights groups have condemned the military commissions because the panels are composed of military officers, many of whom have no judicial experience, and because defendants are excluded from hearings where classified evidence against them is raised.

"Hamdan's right to be present at every phase of his trial and to see all the evidence admitted against him is of immediate ... concern," said Robertson.

The human rights group Amnesty International USA said, "This ruling rightly demolishes the Bush administration's argument that the Geneva Conventions did not universally apply to prisoners detained in Afghanistan."

American Civil Liberties Union executive director Anthony Romero said the decision "sends a clear message that the fight against terrorism does not give the government license to disregard domestic and international law."

Military lawyers have argued that Guantanamo detainees do not benefit from prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Conventions because they are not fighting for a state but al-Qaeda.

"That argument is rejected," said the judge.

Hamdan has appeared, without a lawyer, before a Combatant Status Review Tribunal at Guantanamo, which ruled that he was an "enemy combatant" rather than a prisoner of war. But the judge said the review tribunals were not valid because they were established to assess a detainee’s rights as applicable under the Geneva Convention, under which Hamdan, as an “enemy combatant”, the ruling cannot apply.

"No proper determination has been made that Hamdan is an offender triable by military tribunal under the law of war," Robertson wrote.

"There is nothing in this record to suggest that a competent tribunal has determined that Hamdan is not a prisoner of war under the Geneva Conventions."

The tribunals were authorized by President George W. Bush after the September 11, 2001, attacks, but have been criticized by human rights groups and some military lawyers as being fundamentally unfair to defendants, reports Reuters.

If Guantanamo detainees are ultimately determined to be prisoners of war entitled to trial by court martial, they would have different standards for evidence and could appeal up to the Supreme Court.

The Justice Department criticized the ruling and vowed to seek a stay of the ruling and appeal immediately, reports news agencies.

Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo said the government would appeal the ruling on the grounds that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to members or affiliates of al-Qaeda, reports the AP.

"We vigorously disagree with the court's decision, and will seek an emergency stay of the ruling and immediately appeal," Corallo said in a statement on the department's website.

He added that the judge's ruling "has put terrorism on the same legal footing as legitimate methods of waging war."

United States | News | |