Litigation

?Gitmo Roulette? is Decried

By Peter Hardin

Conflicting  court rulings in the case of a Yemeni national held at Guantanamo Bay underscore the need for clear rules on challenging detentions, a Washington Post editorial contends.

The editorial draws on the case of Mohammed Al-Adahi to argue that detainees now face a kind of “Guantanamo roulette” when it comes to the standards they must meet in challenging their detention.

District Court Judge Gladys Kessler ordered Adahi’s release last year, looking at each of his suspicious acts in isolation and concluding that his “admission that he trained at Al-Farouq [training camp] is not sufficient to carry the Government’s burden of showing that he was a part, or substantial supporter, of enemy forces.”

But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. disagreed with Judge Kessler last month (see Gavel Grab) and concluded that a stay at an al-Qaeda guesthouse or training camp presented “overwhelming” evidence of belonging to al-Qaeda.  The editorial sees yawning gaps to be filled:

“The Supreme Court, which ruled two years ago that detainees have the right to have their cases heard by federal judges, did not set standards, and Congress and the White House have been shamefully inactive in filling the gaps.

“The end result is a kind of Guantanamo roulette, where the predilections of judges shape the rules and determine the outcomes. This serves no one well–not the detainees, not the government and least of all the rule of law.”

You can learn  read about disputes involving detainees? rights and related proceedings in federal courts in these earlier Gavel Grab posts.

Full post as published by The Gavel on July 27, 2010 (boomark / email).