Skip to main content
CNN.com
Search
Home Asia Europe U.S. World Business Tech Science Entertainment Sport Travel Weather Specials Video I-Reports
Law Center

Supreme Court rejects appeal by Gitmo prisoners

Story Highlights

NEW: White House "pleased" at ruling; defense says example of "justice denied"
• At issue: Rights to contest imprisonment, rules about war criminal trials
• Kennedy, Stevens suggest the appeals might go forward after tribunals
• Australian detainee David Hicks pleaded guilty last week to terror charges

Adjust font size:
Decrease fontDecrease font
Enlarge fontEnlarge font

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a victory for President Bush, the Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal by suspected terrorists challenging their imprisonment at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

At issue are the rights of the prisoners to contest their imprisonment and the rules set up to try them as war criminals. About 400 detainees are being held at the facility, including admitted September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and 13 other suspected top al Qaeda members.

The justices ruled 6-3 to deny appeals from two groups of prisoners. Preliminary hearings before military commissions at Guantanamo have already begun for a few detainees.

At the White House, spokeswoman Dana Perino told The Associated Press that, "on first glance, we're very pleased with the decision."

Washington lawyer Tom Wilner, who has represented Guantanamo detainees since May 2002, told AP that the ruling is "a perfect example of 'justice delayed is justice denied.' All these people ever wanted was a fair hearing."

But the ruling may be only a temporary set back for the plaintiffs. In a brief order written by Justices John Paul Stevens and Anthony Kennedy, the court suggested the detainees could appeal once their tribunals or preliminary hearings have been completed.

"Despite the obvious importance of the issues raised in these cases, we are persuaded that traditional rules governing our decision of constitutional questions ... and our practice of requiring the exhaustion of available remedies as a precondition to accepting jurisdiction over applications for the writ of habeas corpus ... make it appropriate to deny these petitions at this time."

The Guantanamo plaintiffs claim they have a right to habeas corpus review, a part of the Constitution that shields individuals from unlawful imprisonment.

A law passed last fall would limit court jurisdiction to hear such challenges, and plaintiffs want the court to strike it down. It is something the justices have decided twice before, ruling each time against the government's authority to hold people identified as enemy combatants.

The appeals from the detainees come months before several of the mostly Muslim men are expected to begin facing criminal prosecution before U.S. military commissions.

The majority of justices noted the court would be willing to get involved later if the prisoners could show "the government has unreasonably delayed proceedings." Some of the men have been held for years awaiting charges. The court also said its decision to stay out of the fight for now does not mean it is rejecting the claims on their merits, just that the timing was not right for the court's involvement now.

Breyer, Souter, Ginsburg in minority

Justice Stephen Breyer said the court should have accepted jurisdiction over the matter now, concluding the prisoners "have a compelling interest in assuring in advance that the procedures to which they are subject are lawful." He was supported by Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Last week, the first of the preliminary hearings for the tribunals was scuttled when Australian Guantanamo prisoner David Hicks unexpectedly pleaded guilty to a terrorism-related charge. He was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2001. (Watch a legal expert suggest Hicks may have opted for a "pragmatic course of action" Video)

"The government claims an immense power unprecedented in our history," noted the written appeal, "to imprison foreign nationals, without bringing criminal charges or providing fair process, for an indefinite period. Hundreds of other habeas cases have been stayed in the (federal) district court pending the outcome of this case." Habeas corpus petitions demand the government justify the reasons for holding someone in custody.

The current appeals all involve noncitizens, some of whom have been in U.S. custody for years. Sixteen lawsuits filed on behalf of some 200 prisoners were put on hold pending a ruling that came February 20 by a federal appeals court upholding the government's right to detain and prosecute suspected terrorists and war criminals.

Plaintiffs question October law

The lead plaintiffs are Lakhdar Boumediene, a Bosnian, and Fawzi al-Odah of Kuwait. They question the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act, passed by Congress in October. The law addresses how suspected terrorists and fighters can be tried and sentenced under U.S. military law.

Under the new system, those facing trial would have a limited right to appeal any conviction, reducing the jurisdiction of federal courts. The suspects also must prove to a three-person panel of military officers they are not a terror danger. But defendants would have access to evidence normally given to a jury, and CIA agents are given more guidance in how far they can go in interrogating prisoners.

The law was a direct response to the Supreme Court ruling in June striking down the Bush administration's plan to try detainees before military commissions. The justices in 2004 also affirmed the right of prisoners to challenge their detention in federal court. Congress and the administration have sought to restrict such access.

The Justice Department wants the high court to reject these appeals, at least until the first wave of tribunals have had a chance to work. Bush administration officials also argue the prisoners have plenty of legal safeguards.

"Congress has afforded petitioners -- all aliens detained at Guantanamo Bay as confirmed enemy combatants in the ongoing armed conflict against the al Qaeda terrorist organization and its supporters -- an unprecedented degree of access to our courts in wartime," said the government in its legal brief. "No other captured enemy combatant in the history of this country, or any other, have enjoyed such privileges."

The cases are Boumediene v. Bush (06-1195) and al Odah v. U.S. (06-1196).

CNN's Bill Mears contributed to this report.

Copyright 2007 CNN. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Associated Press contributed to this report.


story.hicks.jpg

A military tribunal at Guantanamo was scuttled last week when Australian detainee David Hicks, left in gray suit, pleaded guilty.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Find a local attorney at Martindale-Hubbell's® Lawyers.com
Enter City:




or: Search by Lawyer's Name

Law Firm Marketing: Expert Help for Attorneys from Lawyers.com
CNN U.S.
CNN TV How To Get CNN Partner Hotels Contact Us Ad Info About Us Preferences
Search
© 2007 Cable News Network.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us. Site Map.
SERVICES » E-mail RSSRSS Feed PodcastsRadio News Icon CNN Mobile CNN Pipeline
Offsite Icon External sites open in new window; not endorsed by CNN.com
Pipeline Icon Pay service with live and archived video. Learn more