Court Ruling Halts Guantanamo Proceedings

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba – A U.S. federal court ruled Monday that Osama bin Laden’s driver was entitled to a legal hearing on whether he is a prisoner of war – a landmark opinion that could prevent military trials of alleged enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay.

The government said it would immediately seek a stay of that ruling and file an appeal.

It was the first time a federal court halted legal proceedings before U.S. military commissions, resurrected from World War II, at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. No trials have been held, although tentative trial dates for four detainees had been scheduled.

A U.S. District Court judge in Washington halted the pretrial proceedings of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, 34, of Yemen, after his lawyers filed a petition. Hamdan – who is charged with conspiracy to commit war crimes, murder and terrorism and says that he never supported terrorism – was to be the first detainee tried, on Dec. 7.

The judge rejected the U.S. government’s contention that Hamdan and other detainees are not prisoners of war but enemy combatants, a classification affording fewer legal protections under the Geneva Conventions. Hamdan was declared an enemy combatant last month by a review tribunal during a hearing his lawyer was barred from.

“Unless and until a competent tribunal determines that petitioner is not entitled to protections afforded prisoners of war under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention … of Aug. 12, 1949, he may not be tried by military commission for the offenses with which he is charged,” U.S. District Judge James Robertson said.

“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 court also ruled that unless the military commission guidelines are changed to conform to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Hamdan cannot be tried by the commissions.

If the 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.

In Washington, U.S. 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-Qaida.

“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 Web site.

“We believe the President properly determined that the Geneva Conventions have no legal applicability to members or affiliates of al-Qaida …

“The process struck down by the district court today was carefully crafted to protect America from terrorists while affording those charged with violations of the laws of war with fair process, and the Department will make every effort to have this process restored through appeal.”

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

Hamdan’s civilian defense attorney, Neal Katyal, said the district court ruling could set a precedent for all the detainees.

“The judge’s decision was designed to cover the case of Mr. Hamdan, but the spirit of it potentially could extend more broadly to perhaps everything that happens at Guantanamo Bay,” Katyal said.

Richard Samp, chief attorney for the conservative Washington Legal Foundation, said he expects the administration to win its appeal. “The president’s constitutional authority to try war criminals before military commissions has been well-established through our history,” he said.

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.”

The ruling in Washington came as lawyers began pretrial motions in Hamdan’s case. The commission’s presiding officer, Army Col. Peter E. Brownback, then issued an indefinite recess.

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

“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. “The fact that we’re doing this will taint the reputation of military justice for years to come.”

Hamdan’s petition is one of more than 60 similar challenges, arguing that the commissions are illegal and should not have jurisdiction.

Since a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June cleared the way for detainees to challenge their detentions in U.S. courts, civilian attorneys have poured into Guantanamo to meet with clients.

Some of the 550 prisoners from more than 40 countries have been held for nearly three years, but few have had access to attorneys and only four have been charged.

Since President Bush ordered the commissions, defense attorneys have said the rules are so vague that a fair trial is impossible. There is no specific appeal process, and lawyers are still debating what type of evidence can be used during trials.

The review tribunals were set up after the Supreme Court decision, and since then more than 300 cases have been reviewed. Only one man, a Pakistani, has been freed.

Air Force Lt. Col. Sharon Shaffer, a lawyer for accused al-Qaida paymaster Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud al Qosi, said a petition was also filed Monday federal court in Washington, alleging her Sudanese client was tortured by U.S. troops after he was captured by Pakistani bounty hunters in December 2001, and that he also suffered abuse at Guantanamo. The military has maintained that detainees are treated humanely.