scoone
01-15-2004, 06:01 AM
Foreign terrorism suspects prosecuted in U.S. military trials must have the right to appeal to civilian courts and not be forced to put their fate solely in the hands of legal machinery created by the Pentagon, military defense lawyers told the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
The five lawyers, who made the argument in a friend-of-the-court brief to the U.S. high court, are military officers assigned by the Defense Department to defend prisoners held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
"The government's argument in this case has no logical stopping point," the brief stated. "If there is no right to civilian review, the government is free to conduct sham trials and condemn to death those who do nothing more than pray to Allah."
The military defense lawyers filed the brief in connection with suits, set to be heard by the Supreme Court, filed by relatives of Guantanamo prisoners who are asking that civilian courts be allowed to consider the legality of their detention.
The brief challenges the constitutionality of the structure that the Pentagon created for military tribunals. The five lawyers argued that defendants must have the right to take appeals to U.S. civilian courts rather than being charged, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced, possibly to death, within the military tribunal apparatus.
The process calls for defendants to be brought to trial on charges approved by the Defense Department, judged by U.S. military officers, with any appeals of convictions or sentences going to a special panel named by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and then to Rumsfeld and ultimately Bush to decide.
Bush "asserts the power to create a legal black hole" in which defendants brought up on charges may not challenge the jurisdiction, competency or even the constitutionality of the military tribunals, the five lawyers said.
Bush in 2001 authorized military trials of non-U.S. citizens caught in what he calls the global war on terrorism. He has designated six prisoners being held without charge at Guantanamo as eligible for trial before panels of U.S. service members, officially known as military commissions.
"This court (the Supreme Court) has never given the president the ability to proclaim himself the superior or sole expositor of the Constitution in matters of justice," the brief stated.
The brief does not challenge the president's right to hold prisoners captured in the anti-terrorism campaign.
The five lawyers were: Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, named to defend Yemeni prisoner Salim Ahmed Hamdan; Maj. Michael Mori, assigned to defend Australian David Hicks; Lt. Cmdr. Philip Sundel; Maj. Mark Bridges; and Lt. Col. Sharon Shaffer. The latter three have not yet been assigned a prisoner to defend.
The five lawyers, who made the argument in a friend-of-the-court brief to the U.S. high court, are military officers assigned by the Defense Department to defend prisoners held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
"The government's argument in this case has no logical stopping point," the brief stated. "If there is no right to civilian review, the government is free to conduct sham trials and condemn to death those who do nothing more than pray to Allah."
The military defense lawyers filed the brief in connection with suits, set to be heard by the Supreme Court, filed by relatives of Guantanamo prisoners who are asking that civilian courts be allowed to consider the legality of their detention.
The brief challenges the constitutionality of the structure that the Pentagon created for military tribunals. The five lawyers argued that defendants must have the right to take appeals to U.S. civilian courts rather than being charged, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced, possibly to death, within the military tribunal apparatus.
The process calls for defendants to be brought to trial on charges approved by the Defense Department, judged by U.S. military officers, with any appeals of convictions or sentences going to a special panel named by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and then to Rumsfeld and ultimately Bush to decide.
Bush "asserts the power to create a legal black hole" in which defendants brought up on charges may not challenge the jurisdiction, competency or even the constitutionality of the military tribunals, the five lawyers said.
Bush in 2001 authorized military trials of non-U.S. citizens caught in what he calls the global war on terrorism. He has designated six prisoners being held without charge at Guantanamo as eligible for trial before panels of U.S. service members, officially known as military commissions.
"This court (the Supreme Court) has never given the president the ability to proclaim himself the superior or sole expositor of the Constitution in matters of justice," the brief stated.
The brief does not challenge the president's right to hold prisoners captured in the anti-terrorism campaign.
The five lawyers were: Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, named to defend Yemeni prisoner Salim Ahmed Hamdan; Maj. Michael Mori, assigned to defend Australian David Hicks; Lt. Cmdr. Philip Sundel; Maj. Mark Bridges; and Lt. Col. Sharon Shaffer. The latter three have not yet been assigned a prisoner to defend.