Fri Jan 9, 8:30 PM ET
By ANNE GEARAN, Associated
Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The Supreme
Court agreed Friday to
hear the case of a> U.S.-born
man captured during fighting
in Afghanistan and held
without charges, the latest
setback for the Bush administration
and its assertion of broad
new powers to prosecute
the war on terrorism.
Over the administration's
objections, the court
said it will consider
the treatment of Yaser
Esam Hamdi, a suspected
Taliban foot soldier held
at a U.S. naval brig in
South Carolina. The government
calls Hamdi an "enemy
combatant" and says
he is ineligible for ordinary
legal protections.
The administration says
it is reluctant to allow
enemy combatants access
to lawyers because that
could greatly inhibit
efforts to obtain information
from them about potential
terrorist operations.
Unlike almost all the
others picked up overseas
since the Sept. 11 attacks,
Hamdi is an American citizen.
He was born to Saudi parents
living in Louisiana but
was raised in Saudi Arabia.
Other terrorism cases
are still at or near the
high court's doorstep,
including the case of
another U.S.-born terror
suspect held indefinitely
without access to lawyers.
Jose Padilla, a former
gang member and convert
to Islam, was picked up
in Chicago in 2002 and
detained in connection
with an alleged plot to
detonate a radioactive
"dirty bomb."
The Supreme Court could
choose to consider the
two cases together, simultaneously
addressing the rights
of U.S. citizens captured
abroad as well as those
picked up in the United
States.
The cases raise basic
legal and constitutional
questions about the
breadth of executive power
and the rights of terror
suspects to defend themselves
in court.
"The court has
really drawn a line in
the sand," said Deborah
Pearlstein, a lawyer and
national security specialist
at the Lawyers Committee
for Human Rights, which
has been a frequent Bush
administration critic.
"It is recognizing
that, yes, the executive
has some wartime powers,
but they are not unlimited."
"The Justice Department
(news - web sites) will
vigorously defend the
president's authority
to capture and detain
enemy combatants,"
department spokeswoman
Monica Goodling said Friday.
"This
authority is crucial in
times of war," whether
applied to those caught
overseas or at home, she
said.
The court will probably
consider Hamdi's case
in April, with a ruling
expected by July.
The court separately
has agreed to consider
the legal rights of other
battlefield prisoners
held as enemy combatants
at the U.S. military
prison camp at Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba.
The court could say
as soon as Monday whether
it will hear an
appeal over government
secrecy in the detention
of hundreds of
foreigners picked up in
the United States and
held immediately after
Sept. 11. Civil liberties
organizations are seeking
names and other details
about the detainees, mostly
Muslim and Arab men who
have since been deported
for civil immigration
violations.
Hamdi was captured in
Afghanistan in November
2001, and taken to Guantanamo.
He was transferred to
the naval brig in South
Carolina after authorities
verified his citizenship.
The Bush administration
has maintained that it
alone has the power to
designate someone an enemy
combatant and that
the label means a detainee
can be held in open-ended
military custody without
access to courts, lawyers
and sometimes family or
other outsiders.
Such detentions serve
national security ends,
and are not subject to
the usual rules of the
criminal court system,
such as private meetings
between suspects and lawyers
and the right to a speedy
trial, the administration
has said.
"Hamdi is a classic
battlefield detainee
captured in Afghanistan,
an area of active combat,
with an enemy unit,"
Solicitor General Theodore
Olson told the court in
urging it to stay out
of the case.
A lower federal court
had sided with the government
in Hamdi's case, and the
administration wanted
that ruling to stand.
Another lower federal
court ruled against the
government in the Padilla
case.
The government contends
that Hamdi is not constitutionally
entitled to a lawyer,
but recently said it will
allow lawyer Frank Dunham
to visit him anyway. The
meeting has not taken
place and the issue remains
a part of the Supreme
Court case.
"The guy basically
had his day in court and
he wasn't there,"
Dunham said Friday. "Now
we're seeking review of
that denial of a day in
court. If I saw him now
it wouldn't change anything."
The case is Hamdi v.
Rumsfeld, 03-6696.
___
On the Net:
The 4th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals (news
- web sites) ruling in
the
Hamdi case: http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/027338.P.pdf
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040110/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_enemy_combatant_8
|
