CCR WINS MAJOR VICTORY FOR THE RULE OF LAW IN GUANTANAMO BAY

Synopsis

Supreme Court issued a historic ruling on Monday,
June 28th, finding that the hundreds of men
detained as "enemy combatants" in Guantánamo Bay
can challenge their detention in federal courts.

Description and Status

On June 28, The Supreme Court issued a historic ruling
in Rasul v. Bush, CCR’s challenge to the Bush
Administration’s policy of indefinitely holding
detainees at Guantánamo Bay without judicial review.
Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) hailed today’s
ruling, which held that foreign terrorism suspects may
use the American legal system to challenge their
detention.

The Center for Constitutional Rights began this case in
February 2002, shortly after the first detainees were
sent to Guantánamo. Representing two Australians-David
Hicks and Mamdouh Habib-and two men from the U.K.-Shafiq
Rasul and Asif Iqbal, CCR filed a petition seeking a
writ of habeas corpus in the District Court for the
District of Columbia. The petition challenged the
Presidential Executive Order of November 13, 2001, which
authorized indefinite detention without due process of
law, as a violation of international law and the U.S.
Constitution. It was shortly after 9/11 and a very
different climate existed in the United States at that
time: no other legal organization was willing to join us
in our efforts, and CCR received scores of death threats
and hate mail.

The core contention of the litigation was that the
United States cannot order indefinite detention without
due process. The detainees have the right to challenge
the legality of their detention in court. To make that
challenge meaningful, they have the right to be informed
of the charges they face, and the right to present
evidence on their own behalves and to cross-examine
their accusers. The failure of the Bush Administration
to provide these protections raises serious questions
about their commitment to the U.S. Constitution and
international law.

The ruling was 6-3, with Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas
dissenting. Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul
Stevens found that federal courts do have jurisdiction
to hear detainees’ challenges to their detention.
Habeas Corpus, the legal principle in question, extends
back hundreds of years in common law, and the decision
cited considerable historical as well as more
contemporary evidence that it is properly applied to
cases even outside the territorial boundaries of the
nation.

’The Supreme Court has not closed the doors of justice
to the detainees imprisoned at Guantánamo Bay,’ said CCR
President Michael Ratner, adding, ’this is a major
victory for the rule of law and affirms the right of
every person, citizen or non-citizen, detained by the
United States to test the legality of his or her
detention in a U.S. Court. The Center for Constitutional
Rights has long believed that even in a time of danger,
executive detentions have no place in a democracy.’

CCR is reviewing the decision, in preparation for
further action on behalf of our clients, most of whom
have been held for more than two years with no legal
basis, no opportunity to prove their innocence, and no
hope of release anytime in the foreseeable future. The
mother of one of our clients, Rabiye Kurnaz, expressed
great relief on hearing that her son will have his day
in court:

’Today, for the first time in two years I have hope.
This is a great day for justice. I hope that I will
hear from my son soon and can tell him that with this
historic decision fair proceedings will start and that
all innocents will be released from U.S. custody in
Guantánamo.’

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/report.asp?ObjID=VLDpxLxfHr&Content=402