Mr Mukasey voiced disappointment at the court's Guantanamo ruling A key ruling by the US Supreme Court on Guantanamo detainees will not affect military trials of enemy combatants, the attorney general has said. Michael Mukasey said he was disappointed with the court's decision to allow foreign suspects to challenge their detention in US civilian courts. But he said the trials of "enemy combatants" due to be held at the naval facility in Cuba would proceed. The court's ruling has been welcomed by US and foreign human rights groups. It is seen as a major legal setback for the Bush administration, although it is not clear whether it will lead to prompt court hearings for the detainees. 'Step forwards' Mr Mukasey said: "I'm disappointed with the decision, in so far as I understand that it will result in hundreds of actions challenging the detention of enemy combatants to be moved to federal district court." He added: "It bears emphasis that the court's decision does not concern military commission trials, which will continue to proceed." We'll study this opinion to determine whether or not additional legislation may be appropriate

US President George W Bush

Fallout from the ruling Court strikes blow for detainees Supreme Court ruling (640KB) Some 270 men are held at Guantanamo, on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaeda. US President George W Bush said he would abide by the ruling even if he did not agree with it. Thursday's decision potentially resurrects several cases that had been put on hold in recent months. Federal judges, law clerks and court administrators studying the 70-page opinion to work out how to proceed. And a military lawyer for Osama Bin Laden's former driver, Guantanamo detainee Salim Ahmed Hamdan, is requesting that charges against his client be dismissed. "The entire basis for the existence of Guantanamo Bay is gone," said Navy Lt Cmdr Brian Mizer. 'Inquisition' Wednesday's ruling related to two test cases brought by Lakhdar Boumediene, an Algerian arrested in Bosnia in 2001, and Fawzi al-Odah, a Kuwaiti seized in Pakistan in 2002, which were consolidated and brought on behalf of 37 foreign nationals at Guantanamo. Brushing aside the government's arguments that the detainees were enemy combatants being held at a time of war outside the US, the court said they had "the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus". There have been accusations of torture and mistreatment at Guantanamo This is the right of detainees under the US constitution to be heard by an independent judge. This is the Bush administration's third setback at the highest US court since 2004 over its treatment of prisoners who are being held indefinitely and without charge at the base in Cuba. The court has ruled twice previously that Guantanamo inmates could go into civilian courts to ask that the government justify their continued detention. In 2004, the judges found that existing law gave federal courts the right to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals held at Guantanamo because of the unique control the US government had over the land leased from Cuba. Two years later, it ruled that the president did not have the authority to order the "enemy combatants" there to face military commissions. The government responded both times by obtaining congressional legislation restricting judicial review of the detentions. The Military Commissions Act (MCA) passed in 2006 removed the right of habeas corpus and set up tribunals to try detainees who were not US citizens. Last week, five detainees, including key suspect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, appeared before a military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed dismissed the trial as an "inquisition". 'Restoring credibility' President Bush made it clear that the government would "abide by the court's decision", although he did so without enthusiasm. Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play. "It was a deeply divided court and I strongly agree with those who dissented," he told reporters in Rome. "We'll study this opinion to determine whether or not additional legislation may be appropriate." Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who voted against the ruling, warned that "it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving in a civilian court ... that evidence supports the confinement of each and every prisoner". But the human-rights group Amnesty International urged the US government to "finally bring its detention policies and practices in the 'war on terror' in line with international standards". For the American Bar Association, the ruling helped restore the credibility of the US as a "model for the rule of law across the globe".



Bookmark with: Delicious

Digg

reddit

Facebook

StumbleUpon What are these? E-mail this to a friend Printable version