|
The War Profiteers - War Crimes,
Kidnappings & Torture |
|
October 21st,
2009 - Justices to Decide on U.S. Release of Detainees |
|
Justices to
Decide on U.S. Release of Detainees By Adam Liptak New York Times October 21, 2009 Washington - The Supreme
Court on Tuesday agreed to decide whether federal courts have the power to
order prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay to be released into the United States. The court’s decision to hear
the case adds a further complication to the Obama administration’s efforts to
close the prison at the naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. A measure in
Congress that would allow detainees to be admitted to the United States just
to face trial had to overcome strong resistance before winning final passage
on Tuesday. The administration has met with only fitful success in persuading
foreign allies to accept prisoners cleared for release. The Supreme Court is
unlikely to hear arguments in the case before late February, a month after
the administration’s deadline of Jan. 22 for closing the prison, though there
have been recent signals that the deadline may not be met. The case concerns 13 men
from the largely Muslim Uighur region of western China who continue to be
held although the government has determined that they pose no threat to the
United States. Last October, a federal
judge here ordered the men released into the care of supporters in the United
States, initially in the Washington area. But a federal appeals court
reversed that ruling in February, saying that judges do not have the power to
override immigration laws and force the executive branch to release foreigners
into the United States. That appeals court ruling
has tied the hands of judges considering challenges from other prisoners at
Guantánamo Bay. According to the Justice Department, trial judges have
granted petitions for writs of habeas corpus from 30 Guantánamo prisoners. Of
that group, 10 have been transferred to foreign countries. None have been
admitted to the United States. The case presents the next
logical legal question in the series of detainee cases that have reached the
Supreme Court. Last year, in Boumediene v. Bush, the court ruled that federal
judges have jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus claims from prisoners held at
Guantánamo. Lawyers for the Uighur
prisoners say the Boumediene ruling would be an empty one if it did not imply
giving judges the power to order prisoners to be released into the United
States if they cannot be returned to their home countries or settled
elsewhere. A Justice Department
spokesman, Dean Boyd, said the administration had been working diligently to
release or try prisoners held at Guantánamo. “This administration remains
as committed to closing the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, which has
served as a prime recruiting tool for Al Qaeda and strained our alliances
overseas, as it was on the day the president signed the executive order” to
close the prison, Mr. Boyd said in a statement, adding that nine detainees
had been transferred to foreign countries since President Obama took office
in addition to those ordered released by the courts. Sabin Willett, a lawyer for
the Uighur detainees, said in a statement that the Supreme Court’s decision
to hear the case demonstrated that courts also have an important role to
play. “We hope this will result in
a ruling that confirms that the writ of habeas corpus guarantees to the
innocent not just a judge’s learned essay but something meaningful - his
release,” Mr. Willett said. The appeal from the Uighurs
has been pending in the Supreme Court since April, and it is not clear why
the court acted on it now. The Obama administration has sent four of the
Uighur prisoners to Bermuda, and Palau has said that it will accept most of
the rest. But at least one prisoner apparently has nowhere to go. The Uighur prisoners have
said they fear they will be tortured or executed if they are returned to
China, where they are viewed as terrorists. The new case, Kiyemba v.
Obama, 08-1234, may turn out to be moot if the administration is successful
in settling all of the Uighur prisoners abroad. Even if that happens,
however, other cases presenting the central issue in the case are likely to
follow so long as prisoners cleared for release with nowhere to go remain at
Guantánamo. The new case pits a
fundamental judicial function, that of policing unlawful imprisonment through
writs of habeas corpus, against one entrusted to the political branches, that
of enacting and enforcing immigration laws. In ordering the Uighur
prisoners released, Judge Ricardo M. Urbina acknowledged that this conflict
creates a difficult separation-of-powers question. But Judge Urbina said that
time weighed in favor of the Uighurs in the constitutional balance. “Because
their detention has already crossed the constitutional threshold into
infinitum and because our system of checks and balances is designed to preserve
the fundamental right of liberty,” the judge wrote, “the court grants the
petitioners’ motion for release into the United States.” The appeals court ruled that
Judge Urbina had overstepped his constitutional authority. “An undercurrent of
petitioners’ arguments is that they deserve to be released into this country
after all they have endured at the hands of the United States,” Judge A.
Raymond Randolph wrote for the majority of a three-judge panel. “But such
sentiments, however high-minded, do not represent a legal basis for upsetting
settled law and overriding the prerogatives of the political branches.” In urging the Supreme Court
not to hear the new case, the Justice Department said the Uighurs were “free
to leave Guantánamo Bay to go to any country that is willing to accept them,
and in the meantime, they are housed in facilities separate from those for
enemy combatants under the least restrictive conditions practicable.” But, the Justice
Department’s brief continued, “there is a fundamental difference between
ordering the release of a detained alien to permit him to return home or to
another country and ordering that the alien be brought to and released in the
United States without regard to immigration laws.” Lawyers for the Uighurs, who
were captured in Afghanistan or Pakistan after the Sept. 11 attacks, argued
that the appeals court’s ruling rendered the writ of habeas corpus an empty
gesture. It made courts “powerless to relieve unlawful imprisonment,” the
Uighurs’ brief argued, “even where the executive brought the prisoners to our
threshold, imprisons them there without legal justification, and - as seven years
have so poignantly proved - there is nowhere else to go.” Copyright 2009 The New York
Times Company External link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/us/21scotus.html |