[NYTr] Full Court Access Urged for Gitmo Detainees

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

sent by MichaelP (activ-l)

[These are the cases the US Supreme Court first decided NOT YET to
review and then took the rare step of changing its decision and to
accept them for full review.  There are 9 justices - the initial denial
of review in principle means only that 4 of the 9 opposed review at
that time, so that at least one of the nine has switched vote.

But the denial of review was not surprising because the lower court 
decision had not come before the Appeals Court, and asking the Supreme 
Court to review the case was abnormal in that the detainees were asking
to get to the constitutional issues decided without the delay involved
in going to the appeals court - especially where that appeals court has
made it clear that it is bound to earlier Supreme Court decisions to
accept the Gopvernment's position against the detainees.

So this is an important case to watch - and the array of argument
already briefed is impressive. -M]


AP via The Guardian - Aug 25, 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6874688,00.html

Full Court Access Urged for Gitmo Detainees

WASHINGTON (AP) - Twenty retired federal judges, two rear admirals and
a Marine general joined 383 current or former members of the European
and British parliaments on Friday in urging the Supreme Court to grant 
detainees at Guantanamo Bay full access to the U.S. court system.

Lower court rulings supporting the Bush administration's opposition to 
full  court  access  ``were seized upon by repressive governments as a 
license  to incarcerate their own citizens and others with impunity,''
25 retired American diplomats wrote in one court filing.

In  June,  the  Supreme  Court  agreed  to  take  the detainees' case, 
reversing  a  decision in April not to hear arguments over whether the 
prisoners can use federal courts to challenge their confinement. Court 
filings by the Bush administration in the case are due on Oct. 9.

The  383  European politicians of divergent political views said it is 
important  that  even  when  faced  with  the  threat of international 
terrorism,  all  states,  including the United States, comply with the 
standards  set  by international humanitarian law and human rights law
by granting full court access.  ``The   treatment  of  petitioners
currently falls  short  of  these standards,'' the European diplomats
said.

Currently,  the  355  detainees  have  only narrowly structured appeal 
rights.  They  are entitled to a single civilian court review of their 
status  as enemy  combatants,  a  designation  made  by  three-member 
military panels.  The  detainees  have  no  legal  counsel before the 
military panels, which rely largely on classified information that the 
detainees are not allowed to see.

The  panels,  called  Combatant  Status  Review  Tribunals,  have been 
tainted by the permissible use of evidence obtained by torture, said a 
court filing by two former Navy judge advocates general and the former 
senior legal adviser for the Marine Corps.

``If  the  United  States  holds  prisoners indefinitely - potentially 
lifetime imprisonment  -  based  on sham CSRT proceedings and without 
providing meaningful judicial review of their imprisonment, enemies in 
current  or  future  conflicts  may  use that as an excuse to mete out 
similar treatment  to  captured  American military forces,'' said the 
three.

They  are Brig. Gen. David M. Brahms, the senior legal advisor for the 
Marine  Corps from 1985-88; Rear Adm. Donald J. Guter the Navy's judge 
advocate  general from 2000 to 2002; and Rear Adm. John D. Hutson, the 
Navy's judge advocate general from 1997 to 2000.

The  20  retired  federal judges, both Republicans and Democrats, said
the stringent  review  procedure  ``corrupts  the judicial function''
because it does not provide for fact-finding into whether statements
were obtained by torture.

``The  English  common  law  and  our  nation's fundamental traditions 
condemn  judicial  reliance  upon  statements  extracted by torture or 
other impermissible  coercion,''  the  retired  judges' brief stated. 
``There  are substantial  allegations, however, that Combatant Status 
Review Tribunal panels have relied on such statements.''

                          ***

MeyerBrownRowe.com - Aug 24, 2007
<http://www.mayerbrownrowe.com/probono/news/

24 August 2007 Boumediene/Al Odah Supreme Court Case: Brief Resource 
Center 

On June 29, 2007, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in  Boumediene
v.  Bush and Al Odah v. United States. The consolidated cases address,
among other issues, whether the provisions of the Military Commissions
Act of 2006 that bar Guantanamo detainees from pursuing habeas corpus
petitions violate the Suspension Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and
whether the detainees are entitled to pursue habeas claims in federal
court. Gary Isaac and Jim Schroeder of Mayer Brown, along with Jonathan
Hafetz of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School, coordinated
the amicus support in Boumediene and Al Odah.

All of the briefs  submitted  at the merits stage in the Supreme Court
are posted at open links shown  below: -

Supreme Court briefs in Guantanamo Bay case:

Brief for Petitioners Al Odah, et al. 
<www.mayerbrownrowe.com/public_docs/probono_AlOdah_Abdah.pdf>

Brief for Petitioners El-Banna et al. 
<www.mayerbrownrowe.com/public_docs/probono_El-Banna_Merits_Brief_Final.pdf

Brief  Amicus  Curiae of the American Civil Liberties Union and Public 
Justice In Support of Petitioners 
<www.mayerbrownrowe.com/public_docs/probono_ACLU_amicus_brief.pdf>

Brief Amicus Curiae of Retired Military Officers in Support of
Petitioners <www.mayerbrownrowe.com/public_docs/probono_Retired_Milit
ary_Amicus.pdf>

Brief  Amicus  Curiae  of  the  American Bar Association In Support of 
Petitioners 
<www.mayerbrownrowe.com/public_docs/probono_ABA_Amicus_Revised.pdf>

Brief of Amici Curiae Canadian Parliamentarians and Professors of Law
in Support of Reversal 
<www.mayerbrownrowe.com/public_docs/probono_Canadian_ParliamentariansProfessors.pdf>

Brief for the Commonwealth Lawyers Association as Amicus Curiae In
Support of Petitioners 
<www.mayerbrownrowe.com/public_docs/probono_Commonwealth_Lawyers_Amicus.pdf>

Brief  of  Federal  Courts  and  International Law Professors as Amici 
<Jwww.mayerbrownrowe.com/public_docs/probono_Federal_Court>

Brief  Amicus  Curiae  of the Federal Public Defender for the Southern 
District of Florida in Support of Petitioners 
<www.mayerbrownrowe.com/public_docs/probono_Federal_Public_Defender.pdf>

Brief of Former United States Diplomats As Amicus Curiae In Support of 
Petitioners 
<www.mayerbrownrowe.com/public_docs/probono_Former_Diplomats_Amicus.pdf>

Brief  for Amici Curiae Coalition of Non-Governmental Organizations In 
Support of Petitioners
<www.mayerbrownrowe.com/public_docs/probono_NGO_amicus_brief.pdf>

Brief  of  Amicus Curiae The Association of the Bar of the City of New 
York in Support of Petitioners 
<www.mayerbrownrowe.com/public_docs/probono_USS_AmicusBrief_NewYork.pdf>

Brief of Legal Historians as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners 
<www.mayerbrownrowe.com/public_docs/probono_Boumediene_FINAL.pdf>

Brief of Amici Curiae Amnesty International, Human Rights Institute of
the International Bar Association, International Federation For Human
Rights, International Law Association in Support of Petitioners 
<www.mayerbrownrowe.com/public_docs/probono_Amnesty_International.pdf>

Brief  of  Amici  Curiae  Specialists  in  Israeli  Military  Law  and 
Constitutional Law in Support of Petitioners 
<www.mayerbrownrowe.com/public_docs/probono_Specialists_Israeli_Military.pdf>

Brief of Professors of Constitutional Law and Federal Jurisdiction as 
Amici Curiae In Support of Petitioners 
<www.mayerbrownrowe.com/public_docs/probono_Brief_Professors_Constitutional.pdf>

Brief of International Humanitarian Law Experts as Amici Curiae in
Support of Petitioners 
<www.mayerbrownrowe.com/public_docs/probono_IHL_Experts_Amicus.pdf>