Court Rules For Guantanamo Inmate
Huzaifa Parhat, a Uighur Muslim, must be released, transferred or given a new hearing, a federal appeals court rules. It's another setback for the Bush administration.
WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court said Monday that the U.S. military improperly labeled a Chinese Muslim held at Guantanamo Bay an "enemy combatant" and it ordered that he be released, transferred or granted a new hearing.
The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington marks the first time a federal court has weighed in on the issue of a Guantanamo detainee's classification and granted him the opportunity to try to secure his release through civilian courts.
A lawyer for Huzaifa Parhat, who has been kept virtually incommunicado for more than six years, said he and other members of Parhat's legal team would seek to have him freed immediately. Parhat is one of 17 Uighur Muslims, an ethnic minority in China, who are still being held at Guantanamo even though the U.S. government acknowledges they pose no threat.
"It is a tremendous day. It is a very conservative court, but we pressed ahead and we won unanimously," said lawyer P. Sabin Willett. "But Huzaifa Parhat is now in his seventh year of imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay, and he doesn't even know about this ruling because he's sitting in solitary confinement and we can't tell him about it. That's what we do to people in this country -- we put them in solitary confinement even when they are not enemy combatants."
A Pentagon spokesman, Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, declined to discuss the ruling and referred calls to the Justice Department, which issued a statement saying, "We're reviewing the decision and considering our options."
The decision was the latest in a series of legal setbacks for the Bush administration and its efforts to defend the military commissions process at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The order came just 11 days after the Supreme Court ruled that the 270 or so detainees at Guantanamo have a constitutional right of habeas corpus, which allows them to challenge their detention in federal courts. That ruling marked the third time since 2004 that the nation's highest court has limited the government's power to use the military to detain and prosecute foreign nationals at Guantanamo.
The appeals court specified that Parhat could "seek release immediately" through a writ of habeas corpus in light of the Supreme Court's June 12 decision.
Parhat's case and scores like it had been put on hold until the Supreme Court made its ruling on the habeas corpus issue.
"Now all of these cases have been revived and this is the first case to move forward," said David Cole, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University. "And here is somebody that the military has been holding on to for six years and the federal court now says he shouldn't have been held in the first place.
"Absent this independent judicial review, he might have been sitting there for another 10 to 15 years. Now he has a chance to find freedom," said Cole, the author of two books on legal issues in the U.S.-led counter-terrorism campaign.
In a one-paragraph notice, the three judges on the appellate panel said they could not discuss their order publicly because it contained classified information and that a declassified version would be available later.
But those familiar with the panel's decision, made Friday, said it suggested that other judges might follow its lead and challenge the government's underlying reasons for keeping detainees like Parhat in military custody for so long.
The ruling came in response to a petition under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which allowed detainees a limited review of their enemy-combatant designation before the Washington appeals court.
Military officials designated hundreds of detainees like Parhat through combatant-status review tribunals, which allowed for them to be prosecuted by the military.
"The premise of the DTA was that the courts would rubber-stamp whatever the administration wanted to do to people designated as enemy combatants. But this shows that the courts are not going to roll over and play dead on the basis of bogus evidence," said Willett, adding that the ruling "cleared" his client of any connections to terrorism.
Parhat, 37, and other Uighurs were captured in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks. He has insisted that he sought refuge there from an oppressive Chinese government and never fought against the United States.
The U.S. government has produced no evidence suggesting that he ever intended to fight, but it designated him an enemy combatant because of alleged links to the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, a separatist group demanding independence from China that Washington says has links to Al Qaeda.
Five Uighurs were released from Guantanamo two years ago to seek asylum in Albania, after the United States said it could not return them to China because they would face persecution there.
Parhat is one of 17 Uighurs being held at Guantanamo, and all of them have been cleared for release as part of annual reviews, a U.S. official said Monday. Although they are still designated enemy combatants, they are not considered significant threats or to have further intelligence value, the official said.
The Uighurs at Guantanamo have become a legal and diplomatic headache for the administration, which says it cannot find a country willing to accept them.
The U.S. official said federal authorities have balked at allowing the Uighurs into the United States.
Some critics have also accused the administration of unfairly portraying the Uighurs as terrorists as a way of appeasing the Chinese government, which seeks to tamp down separatist efforts by the group.
Times staff writer Peter Spiegel contributed to this report.
© 2008 The Los Angeles Times
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
2 Comments so far
Show AllWhen is "TIES TO TERRORISM" going to be applied ACCROSS THE BOARD?
What mean to say is this: If you live in a remote area..and you are part of a larger "cultural" group..then OF COURSE you are going to have "ties" to some person who has done something wrong...If you live in a small town in the USA..for example..and yo know many of your neighbors...other locals..guesss what? one of them..at LEAST..is in to something crooked..Drugs..Guns..PORNOGRAPHY..( FORNICATION IS A TOOL OF THE DEVIL! SHE SHRIEKED..and then ran off..)and if you are part of a ..I must say..DEDICATED religious order..sect..cult.....religion..CHURCH GROUP...then you are ABSOLUTELY going to have "TIES" to some others with the same basic belief...but who have a different..'approach' to...shall we say.."spreading the word"..can you spell "pro-life movement"..need I say more..?
okay..now jump forward...and to apply this principle of "TIES" accross the board..well..guess what...this is getting to the "GLOBAL JIHADI MINDSET" farce...the THOUGHT CRIME Orwellian nightmare portion of the Bush Doctrine..among many...because for example..YOU..yeah YOU...have 'TIES' to a terrorist organization....you really do..believe me..unless you are an Eskimo...because the Government seems to be applying this .."formula" in a very selective way..they are leaving out the little part about well..to use a known concept..."SIX DEGREES OF SEPERATION"...or "EVERY ONE OF US HAS A 50TH COUSIN IN COMMON" which is in fact true...YOU know someone..who knows someone who knows a person that fits the "PROFILE" now so WIDE as to include ...drugs...protest..religion..you know someone that fits a definition as spelled out..oh o vaguely..in the patriot act..or the military commissions act..or..or..or..etc..ad nauseum...YOU..have TIES..to terrorism..
to illustrate this point..HEY! BUSH HAS TIES TO TERRORISM! HE HAD FUCKING TALIBAN AT HIS RANCH AND THEY HAVE...TIES TO AL QAEDA...SO UHHHH...BUSH HAS TIES TO AL QAEDA...I realize you know this..but again..the POINT is that if "TIES TO TERRORISM" is going to be the BENCH MARK for legal action..for persecution..for being LOCKED UP FOR EVER....then ..WOAH NELLY!..because we ALL HAVE THESE CONNECTIONS...EVERYONE KNOWS SOMEONE THAT KNOWS SOMEONE THAT "FITS' THE PARANOID TEMPLATE PUSHED ON US UNDER "THREAT LEVEL ORANGE"...AND SO AGAIN..WHERE IS THE "LINE" AT WHAT ...."DISTANCE" FROM THOSE "TIES" DOES ONE HAVE TO BE TO BE ...NOT A "THREAT"...and againb..how far down the line from the ACTUAL Heavies..WERE THESE POOR HAPLESS POLITICAL REFUGEES???? that is the entire question..right there..how far...HOW MANY DEGREES OF SEPERATION ARE REQUIRED TO BE SAFE FROM ...RENDITION???
If this is to be applied FAIRLY...an impossibility due to the very nature of the thing...but IF it is going to be applied with even a SEMBLANCE of fair play..then..SOME VERY POWERFUL PEOPLE NEED TO BE ASKING THEMSELVES THESE QUESTIONS.."HOW FAR REMOVED IS THAT COUSIN O MINE? THE ONE WHO DID ALL THOS DEALS IN AFGHANISTAN FOR DADDY'S OIL BIDNESS? WHATWAS HIS NAME...HELL! HE EVEN HAD SOME OF THEM RAG-HEADS OVER TO THE COMPANY HQ IN DALLAS...WHAT WERE THEY CALLED? TAL-EE-BAN?...SHEEIT!"
I dunno...you get my drift...HOW MANY DEGREES OF SEPERATION FROM A "KNOWN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION" ARE REQUIRED TO BE SAFE FROM THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND IT'S THUGS? AND WILL THESE GUIDELINES BE APPLIED WITH ANY KIND OF...CONSISTANCY...OR WILL THIS BE WHAT WE ALL THINK IT WILL BE..OR FEAR IT WILL BE...A SIMPLE TOOL OF TERROR FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT TO USE AGAINST ANYONE WHO BEGINS TO LOOK LIKE THEY MAY BE AN INSTRUMENT OF EFFECTIVE....EFFECTIVE...CHANGE?
yeah..I know...how could it be any other way?
LIVE FREE OR DIE!
They are all terrorists if they aren't Roman Catholic! Send all the rest to a living HELL!
What happened to the country I learned about in school?