Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
New York Times
February 2, 2008
Pg. 15
By William Glaberson
A federal appeals court ruled against the Bush administration on Friday in a central case on Guantánamo detainees, declining to reconsider an order that the government has to turn over virtually all its information on many detainees.
Unless the Justice Department obtains a stay, the decision, from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, will clear the way for detainees’ lawyers to press 180 appeals cases of Guantánamo inmates challenging their detentions. The cases contest decisions by military panels that the men are properly held as unlawful enemy combatants.
In the new decision, Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg of the District of Columbia Circuit wrote that letting the government withhold information on detainees from their lawyers and the court “would render utterly meaningless judicial review” of the military panels’ decisions.
The full appeals court, in a 5-to-5 decision, declined to reconsider a decision last year by a three-judge panel from that court. A majority vote was needed to reconsider.
Susan Baker Manning, a lawyer for detainees, said the ruling would force the government to reveal what it knows about detainees, rather than holding men indefinitely on generalizations and secret accusations.
“The sun is about to shine at Guantánamo,” Ms. Manning said.
Lawyers on both sides view the case in the appeals court as second in importance to a separate detainee case that the Supreme Court is considering.
The 180 cases challenging the military decisions have been stalled for months over how much information must be turned over to the detainees’ lawyers. The government says expansive disclosures would cause “exceptionally grave damage to the national security.”
The detainees’ lawyers have argued that only by learning all that the government knows about the 275 detainees at the United States naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, could the appeals court evaluate whether they were treated fairly in the Guantánamo hearings, known as combatant status review tribunals.
The government has argued that the court should examine just the information about detainees that military officials presented to the military panels.
“We are disappointed with today’s decision,” said a spokesman for the Justice Department, Erik Ablin.
Mr. Ablin said lawyers were considering their options.
The government could ask the Supreme Court to review the case. Some lawyers said Friday that the Justice Department’s vigorous effort to block the disclosure orders signaled that it would press its arguments.
The appeals court was obviously fragmented over how to proceed, with five separate opinions, including three dissents. A dissenter, Judge A. Raymond Randolph, wrote that under the order “vast reams of classified information” would be turned over to detainees’ lawyers, risking “serious security breaches for no good reason.”
The separate case before the Supreme Court centers on whether detainees have a right to have federal courts consider habeas corpus petitions from them. That would give federal district judges broad powers over their cases.
Congress has passed legislation striping the courts of the power to hear the habeas cases and provided for the more limited route to contest the military findings in the appeals court in Washington.
In the decision, Chief Judge Ginsburg took note of the controversy surrounding the panels. A detainee, he wrote, “has little ability to gather his own evidence, no right to confront the witnesses against him and no lawyer to help him prepare his case.”
February 2, 2008
Pg. 15
By William Glaberson
A federal appeals court ruled against the Bush administration on Friday in a central case on Guantánamo detainees, declining to reconsider an order that the government has to turn over virtually all its information on many detainees.
Unless the Justice Department obtains a stay, the decision, from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, will clear the way for detainees’ lawyers to press 180 appeals cases of Guantánamo inmates challenging their detentions. The cases contest decisions by military panels that the men are properly held as unlawful enemy combatants.
In the new decision, Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg of the District of Columbia Circuit wrote that letting the government withhold information on detainees from their lawyers and the court “would render utterly meaningless judicial review” of the military panels’ decisions.
The full appeals court, in a 5-to-5 decision, declined to reconsider a decision last year by a three-judge panel from that court. A majority vote was needed to reconsider.
Susan Baker Manning, a lawyer for detainees, said the ruling would force the government to reveal what it knows about detainees, rather than holding men indefinitely on generalizations and secret accusations.
“The sun is about to shine at Guantánamo,” Ms. Manning said.
Lawyers on both sides view the case in the appeals court as second in importance to a separate detainee case that the Supreme Court is considering.
The 180 cases challenging the military decisions have been stalled for months over how much information must be turned over to the detainees’ lawyers. The government says expansive disclosures would cause “exceptionally grave damage to the national security.”
The detainees’ lawyers have argued that only by learning all that the government knows about the 275 detainees at the United States naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, could the appeals court evaluate whether they were treated fairly in the Guantánamo hearings, known as combatant status review tribunals.
The government has argued that the court should examine just the information about detainees that military officials presented to the military panels.
“We are disappointed with today’s decision,” said a spokesman for the Justice Department, Erik Ablin.
Mr. Ablin said lawyers were considering their options.
The government could ask the Supreme Court to review the case. Some lawyers said Friday that the Justice Department’s vigorous effort to block the disclosure orders signaled that it would press its arguments.
The appeals court was obviously fragmented over how to proceed, with five separate opinions, including three dissents. A dissenter, Judge A. Raymond Randolph, wrote that under the order “vast reams of classified information” would be turned over to detainees’ lawyers, risking “serious security breaches for no good reason.”
The separate case before the Supreme Court centers on whether detainees have a right to have federal courts consider habeas corpus petitions from them. That would give federal district judges broad powers over their cases.
Congress has passed legislation striping the courts of the power to hear the habeas cases and provided for the more limited route to contest the military findings in the appeals court in Washington.
In the decision, Chief Judge Ginsburg took note of the controversy surrounding the panels. A detainee, he wrote, “has little ability to gather his own evidence, no right to confront the witnesses against him and no lawyer to help him prepare his case.”