Guantanamo Bay prisoners seek US court hearings

By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Guantanamo Bay prisoners should be
given the chance to prove in court that they have been
mistakenly labeled as “enemy combatants” and have been
unlawfully detained, their attorney said on Thursday.

“Since day one, these people have been saying you’ve got
the wrong guys. They want a fair hearing to show that,”
attorney Thomas Wilner told a U.S. appeals court during more
than two hours of arguments.

But Justice Department lawyer Gregory Katsas repeated the
Bush administration’s position that the prisoners were not
entitled to any constitutional due process rights, and he
defended the military tribunals set up to review their cases.

More than 500 prisoners are now being held at the U.S.
military base in Cuba after the U.S. government designated them
as enemy combatants. Only four have been charged with a crime.

The suspected al Qaeda and Taliban members were captured
after the U.S.-led Afghanistan war that followed the September
11, 2001, attacks. Many have been held since the Guantanamo
prison camp opened in January 2002.

Under the military’s review process, 38 prisoners,
accounting for 7 percent of the detainees, were determined to
not be enemy combatants despite their earlier designation.

The appeals court considered a pair of Guantanamo cases
after two different U.S. District Court judges in Washington
came to opposite conclusions in January.

One judge ruled the prisoners have the constitutional right
not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, and
that the military tribunals were constitutionally flawed. The
other judge said the prisoners have no constitutional rights.

Wilner argued that the prisoners do have fundamental rights
under the U.S. Constitution, that they also can use the habeas
law to challenge their detention and they have the right to
review in court.

Under that law, the government must give a legal and
factual basis for the detention, he said.

All three appellate judges sharply questioned the
government’s lawyer.

Judge David Sentelle questioned the government’s position
that the prisoners have no rights because the base was outside
the United States. “What does Cuba really have left in terms of
sovereignty over Guantanamo?” he asked.

Judge A. Raymond Randolph repeatedly asked why the
prisoners under the habeas law would not be entitled to some
determination in court on whether they have been held under
lawful authority.

Sentelle and Randolph both questioned whether the courts
could defer to the judgments of the military tribunals.

Judge Judith Rogers questioned whether the military
tribunals provided sufficient legal protections.

Lawyers for the prisoners have said the tribunals
improperly denied detainees legal representation and provided
no opportunity for them to rebut the allegations and evidence
against them.

The three-judge panel is expected to rule sometime next
year. Any decision most likely will be appealed to the full
appeals court or to the U.S. Supreme Court.