Ruling lets U.S. resume detainee prosecution

WASHINGTON -- A federal appeals court ruled unanimously on Friday that the military could resume war crimes trials of terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which were suspended last year.

The decision, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, reversed a lower court's ruling that abruptly halted the first war crimes trials conducted by the United States since the end of World War II. The appeals judges said the Bush administration's plan to try some detainees before military commissions did not violate the Constitution, international law or U.S. military law.

Their ruling, in the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a driver for Osama bin Laden, was a significant legal victory for the administration, which has found itself engaged in several court battles over tools that officials say they need to fight terrorist groups.

Of more than 500 detainees remaining at Guantanamo, Hamdan is one of four who have so far been charged with war crimes. Twelve others have been designated by President Bush as eligible for trial, and military officials have suggested that they are prepared to bring charges against dozens of other prisoners there should the president designate them as well.

Hamdan, a Yemeni captured in Afghanistan, is charged with conspiracy to commit attacks on civilians, murder and terrorism. He has argued through his lawyers that although he served as a driver for bin Laden, he was not a member of al-Qaida and never took up arms against Americans or their allies. The proceedings in his case were halted Nov. 8 by the earlier court decision, issued by Judge James Robertson of U.S. District Court in Washington.

Robertson ruled that the military commissions violated the Geneva Conventions; violated the Constitution, because, he said, the president did not have the necessary authority from Congress; and violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which, he said, requires that detainees be tried under the same conditions as U.S. soldiers who are court-martialed.

In Friday's decision, written by Judge A. Raymond Randolph, the appeals court rejected all three rationales.

The court said it was well established that the Geneva Conventions "do not create judicially enforceable rights" -- that is, accusations of a violation may not be brought in a lawsuit.

The appeals panel also held that Robertson had been incorrect in maintaining that Congress had not authorized the president to set up the commissions. Congress gave him the authority to do so, the panel said, in three resolutions dealing with terrorism.

The appeals court said the commissions were not bound by the rules of courts-martial, like allowing for defendants to be present at all times. Robertson had noted that Hamdan had been excluded from the Guantanamo courtroom for some of the proceedings.

The three judges who issued the ruling were all appointed to the bench by Republican presidents; Robertson is a Democratic appointee.

Copyright C 2005 Deseret News Publishing Co.
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.