The End of Gitmo?

By


Well perhaps not quite. But yesterday’s decision by the US Supreme Court, revoking the Court’s decision from April this year on the right of detainees at the Guantanamo Detention Centre to have hebaeus corpus cases heard in Federal Courts, can hardly be underestimated. The decision follows a prolonged battle in US courts over the rights of Guantanamo detainees under US law and the legality of the military tribunals set up by the US administration to prosecute so-called “enemy combatants”.

Under US law enacted as part of the “war against terror” prisoners in US detention classed as “unlawful enemy combatants” can only be trialed by the special military tribunals set up by the US administration. The military tribunals operate, as the name implies, in the military framework and curb a number of proceedings known from the civil courts. However, this was challenged in February this year by one of the detainees awaiting trial at the Guantanamo camp in an Appeals Court in the District of Columbia. The Appeals Courts upheld the law – a ruling that was then appealed to the Supreme Court in April this year. In its April decision the Supreme Court rejected the detainee’s appeal. It is this decision that has now been reversed by the Supreme Court and the Court is likely to instigate proceedings in its coming term in October. At the centre of the coming proceedings will, inter alia, be the question of whether the institution of habeas corpus covers foreigners held outside US territory.

The turn in opinion comes as the former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, reiterated his call for the closure of the Guantanamo Detention Centre and the abolition of the system of military tribunals. Recently President Bush did himself hint at the possibility of closing the camp. The closure of the camp, which has become a disgrace to the Bush administration alongside the Abu Graib prison scandal, would certainly be a welcomed change, albeit a belated one. Provided of course, the Bush administration does not close the Guantanamo camp simply to boost its programme of extraordinary rendition as a way of dealing with foreign prisoners.

Comments

Unknown said…
A belated change indeed. This is a very strange development, and it may be as long ago as 1947 that the Supreme Court has done such an about face after denying a rehearing. The Court's Rules of procedure require either an "intervening circumstance of a substantial or controlling effect" or the counsel has to show "substantial grounds not previously presented". Not sure what may have changed, but there are a couple cases pending in the Federal Circuit for Washington D.C. that may impact the court's ruling.

Your account of this was the first I read Ole, and this is such a strange development by the SC that I thought perhaps you had gotten the story wrong (no offense). But you had the story exactly right of course. I think you are also right to point out that the Bush administration may consider closing Gitmo before a potentially embarrassing Supreme Court decision, especially as it took 5 justices to reverse the earlier decision.

After all, what thinking person could think the Gitmo prison is doing the cause of the White House, War or terror, or American policy any favors?
1 July 2007 at 20:57
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Constitutional Right to Female Sexual Pleasure?

By
Although a right to “sexual pleasure” usually does not fare among traditional rights enshrined in constitutions, such a right was nevertheless proposed by a female member of the Ecuadorian parliament when debating a forthcoming new constitution. Reuters report that the idea behind the proposal was to facilitate gender equality and to avoid sexual violence. Ultimately, however, and in spite of this noble cause, the proposal failed.
Read more

Movie: HOT FUZZ

By
Image
On Wed, 7 th October at 7pm in Taylor A19 the Legal Research Society will present its first movie night of this academic year with a screening of the film HOT FUZZ, a British action comedy with a huge portion of irony and black humour about the bigotry, hypocrisy and intrigues set in an (superficially) idyllic small town in Britain… Synopsis Sgt Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg) is a fiercely motivated and successful London copper who finds himself transferred to the sleepy town of Sandford . Almost everyone in this manicured little community seems to know and love each other. But if Sandford is a sleepy market town, it is home to some very real nightmares. Not that local coppers like loveable oaf Danny Butterman (Nick Frost) see anything suspicious about Sandford's absurd number of 'accidents'. Angel is no ordinary constable and launches an investigation, much to the amusement of his bumbling boss and his colleagues. Critics “Refreshingly British come
Read more

Head of State: Legal Debat About The UK's Election. Legal Research Society. 22 April 2010

By
Image
Head of State: Legal Discussion About The UK Election. Legal Research Society. 22 April 2010 There is a general feeling that the recent debate in Britain between the main party leaders was rather staid compared to the more theatrical style of the U.S Presidential debate on which it was modelled. Perhaps the British electorate would prefer the plain-spoken, tell-it-like-it-is politics of Chris Rock's prescient spoof of the U.S Presidential election. "Head of State" starts Chris Rock as an unlikely democratic for the presidency of the United State, who goes on to win over the electorate by shunning the political point-scoring and spin employed by other candidates and speaking forthrightly about issues that really concern people. Could such a tactic work for the political underdog in Britain. The screening of this sassy political satire was followed by a discussion of the recent and the forthcoming political debate in Britain, as well as the General Election that w
Read more