Law Restricting Guantanamo Appeals Upheld

Headlines

Printer Friendly Version

E-Mail This Article

Law Restricting Guantanamo Appeals Upheld

Published on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 by Reuters

Law Restricting Guantanamo Appeals Upheld

An appeals court on Tuesday upheld the part of a tough anti-terrorism law signed by President George W. Bush that took away the rights of Guantanamo prisoners to challenge their detention before U.S. federal judges.

Protesters dressed as prisoners from the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay march past the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, January 11, 2007. An appeals court on Tuesday upheld the part of a tough anti-terrorism law signed by President George W. Bush that took away the right of Guantanamo prisoners to challenge their detention before U.S. federal judges. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

By a 2-1 vote, the appellate panel handed the Bush administration a major victory and ruled that the law removed federal court jurisdiction over the pending cases brought by the prisoners.

"Federal courts have no jurisdiction in these cases," Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote for the court majority in his 25-page opinion.

There currently are about 395 detainees being held at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. The first prisoners arrived more than five years ago following the September 11 attacks.

The appeals court rejected the argument by lawyers for the prisoners that the law unconstitutionally suspends their right to challenge their imprisonment.

Randolph said the lawyers' arguments on behalf of the prisoners were "creative but not cogent."

After the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the military tribunal system that Bush initially created to try Guantanamo prisoners, he went to the Republican-controlled Congress and got authority under the law signed in October.

The new law allowed tough interrogation and prosecution of terrorism suspects and took away the rights of Guantanamo prisoners to challenge their detention before federal judges.

Judge Judith Rogers, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, dissented and said the new law was inconsistent with the Constitution's clause limiting the suspension of habeas corpus, a long-standing principle of U.S. law.

Discuss This Article

click here...

###

Printer Friendly Version

E-Mail This Article

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.