Detainees: Hamdan a narrow ruling
on Aug 19, 2005 at 6:14 pm
Foreign nationals being held as terrorism suspects at the U.S. Navy’s prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have urged the D.C. Circuit to keep their case alive, arguing that a recent Circuit Court ruling does not undercut their demand that the Bush Administration justify in court their continued detention. They outlined a narrow view of the decision July 15 in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld — in vivid contrast to the broad interpretation given that decision by Justice Department lawyers early this month.
The fact that they have been allowed by the Supreme Court to file habeas challenges to their detention, the captives’ attorneys argued, means that they have a right to a court inquiry into the reasons for being held and to release, if those reasons are found inadequate. In fact, because the District Court has jurisdiction to consider their habeas petitions, the detainees’ brief contended, means that the Court must go forward and examine the validity of any further captivity. They need show no denial of constitutional rights before such an examination is made, the brief contended. (The brief was filed last week, under seal, and has just been publicly released.)
The D.C. Circuit is reviewing two conflicting District Court rulings on whether the Guantanamo detainees have any legal rights to assert against prolonged captivity, so long as they are being held without charges of any crime. A three-judge panel is due to hold a hearing Sept. 8. In advance of that hearing, the Court asked both sides to file briefs on the impact, if any, of the Hamdan ruling. That ruling upheld President Bush’s authority to try detainees for war crimes — an issue separate from the continued detention challenge in the consolidated cases of Al Odah v. U.S. (lead case, 05-5064) and Boumedienne v. Bush (05-5062).
The Justice Department argued on August 2 that the Hamdan ruling “significantly undercuts the claims advanced” by the detainees. The government contended that the Hamdan ruling gave a narrow interpretation to the Supreme Court’s ruling allowing the detainees to file habeas petitions. Thus, it argued, the foreign nationals have no constitutional right to due process and, without that, they have no right to any relief in District Court.
Countering that claim, the detainees’ attorneys said that the Hamdan decision did nothing to disturb their right to a judicial examination of the reasons for their continued detention. The Supreme Court, in clearing the way last year for habeas review, “mandated…judicial review of the legality of executive detention….The Supreme Court…clearly did decide that the detainees are entitled to have the validity of their claim [of innocence] examined and determined on the merits.”
The detainees need not show any constitutional violation before they become entitled to that judicial examination of their claims, the new brief contended. “The government’s assumption that the detainees’ claims must be dismissed if they cannot make out a due process claim under the Fifth Amendment is without foundation….No other legal provision must be invoked to show entitlement to relief. In cases of executive detention, the writ of habeas corpus is a procedural instrument having a single purpose: it commands the respondent to bring the petitioner before the court, so the court may then determine the legality of the respondent’s detention of the petitioner.”
“Once habeas jurisdiction exists,” the brief summed up, “the District Court must adhere to provisions of the habeas statute that automatically trigger entitlement to factual inquiry into the validity of the claim….Nothing in Hamdan undermines the detainees’ submission that the Court should affirm the denial of the government’s motion to dismiss,” and send the case back to District Court to fashion a proceeding that will decide the legality of “potentially indefinite detention.”
