Delay sought in first DTA case
on Jul 26, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Lawyers for a Guantanamo Bay detainee whose designation as an “enemy combatant” is the first to be reviewed by the D.C. Circuit Court asked that court on Thursday to delay the case and set a new briefing and argument schedule. It would be premature to go ahead on the present schedule, the motion argued, until lawyers on both sides have had a chance to take account of the Circuit Court’s ruling last Friday on review procedures it will follow in scores of Detainee Treatment Act cases. That decision, in Bismullah v. Gates (06-1197) and Parhat v. Gates (06-1397) significantly expanded the information the Circuit Court intends to examine as it passes upon military decisions to continue holding Guaratanamo prisoners.
The motion was filed in Paracha v. Gates (Circuit docket 06-1038), which is now in the early stages of a briefing schedule and has been scheduled for a hearing by the Circuit Court on Sept. 17. The brief for Saifullah Paracha, a Pakistani citizen who has a permanent U.S. resident visa, was filed on July 16 (a post describing that brief can be found here), four days before the Bismullah ruling.
Rejecting the Justice Department argument that, in Detainee Treatment Act cases, the Circuit Court should only review the record that was placed before the military’s Combatant Status Review Tribunals, the Bismullah decision said that all government information about a detainee must be made available to the Circuit Court.
In arguing for a new round of briefing and to withdraw the opening brief, attorneys for Paracha said that the Bismullah decision “sufficiently refocuses the issues to be addressed in this case” so as to make the initial brief “obsolete.” The motion also informed the court that the Justice Department “may soon seek clarification” of its duty to provide information about CSRTs.
Thus, Paracha’s counsel argued, “it would be premature, inefficient, and wasteful for the parties to brief and argue this case” before the government has produced the necessary information. It thus called for a withdrawal of the existing briefing schedule, withdrawal of the opening Paracha brief, and arranging for new briefing after both sides notify the court that the government had provided “substantially complete” information about Paracha’s case. (The new motion can be found here.)
.
