Detainees in Afghanistan want to sue for release
WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal judge sought Wednesday to compare four terror suspects being held at a U.S. base in Afghanistan to others detained at Guantanamo Bay to decide if all have the right to sue for their freedom.
But the issue ultimately may be moot if President-elect Barack Obama reverses current government policy so that Afghanistan detainees can protest their capture in court.
The Supreme Court last summer gave al-Qaida and Taliban suspects held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the right to challenge their detention. With about 600 detainees at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan and thousands more being held in Iraq, courts are grappling with whether they, too, can sue to be released.
"These individuals are no different than those detained at Guantanamo except where they're housed," U.S. District Judge John D. Bates said during a hearing in Washington over the rights of four men who have been held at Bagram since at least 2003.
The imprisonment of thousands of foreigners who were swept up in the aftermath of 9/11 has been one of the most controversial U.S. policies under outgoing President George W. Bush.
Courts have reversed parts of the detention policy, calling them unconstitutional. Critics say the policy violates U.S. and international laws, resulting in Obama promising to close the Guantanamo detention facility.
However, the Justice Department maintains the detentions were necessary to get terror suspects and other threats off the battlefield - and off the streets.
What may be considered a battlefield was at the heart of Wednesday's case.
Lawyers for the four men - two Yemeni, one Tunisian and one Afghan - said none was captured while in battle or otherwise directly aiding terrorist groups.
The Justice Department argued that releasing alleged enemy combatants into the Afghan war zone, or even diverting U.S. personnel there to consider their legal cases, could threaten security.
"What evidence is there to believe they would return to the battlefield?" Bates asked Deputy Assistant Attorney General John O'Quinn. "They were not on the battlefield to begin with."
"Post-9/11, the battle is not limited to the traditional battlefield," O'Quinn responded. "And we learned that on 9/11."
Should Osama bin Laden be captured - no matter where - he also would be held, O'Quinn said.
Later, Stanford Law School attorney Barbara Olshansky, representing three of the four men, seized on Bates' questions to argue that the Bagram detainees were "from all over the world ... and none of them are enemy combatants."
Bates stopped her.
"I don't think you can even allege that none of them are enemy combatants," Bates said. "I don't know any of the facts, and I don't know that you know as much as you have intimated."
Evidence proving where the four men were when they were captured has not been made public, and their lawyers are largely relying on statements from the International Committee of the Red Cross and other detainees who have since been released to build their case for freedom.
Bates said he would consider several other factors in deciding whether the Bagram detainees could sue for freedom. They included:
-Whether his order would extend to all detainees held at Bagram or just the four in Wednesday's case. O'Quinn said the order would likely be applied to many, if not all the estimated 600 suspects there; Olshansky said courts should decide on a case-by-case basis because of varying circumstances surrounding those captured.
-If certain rights can be allowed at Guantanamo since it is a controlled base that has been under sovereign U.S. control for more than a century. O'Quinn argued that they can; Olshansky disagreed and said there is little difference between the two bases since Bagram is under long-term U.S. control as the result of an agreement with the Afghan government.
Olshansky said "there is no more complete analogy or mirror to Guantanamo than this (case)."
Bates said he would issue his ruling "in a reasonable time" but asked both sides how the case might continue under Obama.
O'Quinn said the decision of extending detention rights should be left to Congress. Olshansky, meanwhile, said she hoped Obama would settle it since the Bush administration "has not learned the lessons of Guantanamo."
But the issue ultimately may be moot if President-elect Barack Obama reverses current government policy so that Afghanistan detainees can protest their capture in court.
The Supreme Court last summer gave al-Qaida and Taliban suspects held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the right to challenge their detention. With about 600 detainees at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan and thousands more being held in Iraq, courts are grappling with whether they, too, can sue to be released.
"These individuals are no different than those detained at Guantanamo except where they're housed," U.S. District Judge John D. Bates said during a hearing in Washington over the rights of four men who have been held at Bagram since at least 2003.
The imprisonment of thousands of foreigners who were swept up in the aftermath of 9/11 has been one of the most controversial U.S. policies under outgoing President George W. Bush.
Courts have reversed parts of the detention policy, calling them unconstitutional. Critics say the policy violates U.S. and international laws, resulting in Obama promising to close the Guantanamo detention facility.
However, the Justice Department maintains the detentions were necessary to get terror suspects and other threats off the battlefield - and off the streets.
What may be considered a battlefield was at the heart of Wednesday's case.
Lawyers for the four men - two Yemeni, one Tunisian and one Afghan - said none was captured while in battle or otherwise directly aiding terrorist groups.
The Justice Department argued that releasing alleged enemy combatants into the Afghan war zone, or even diverting U.S. personnel there to consider their legal cases, could threaten security.
"What evidence is there to believe they would return to the battlefield?" Bates asked Deputy Assistant Attorney General John O'Quinn. "They were not on the battlefield to begin with."
"Post-9/11, the battle is not limited to the traditional battlefield," O'Quinn responded. "And we learned that on 9/11."
Should Osama bin Laden be captured - no matter where - he also would be held, O'Quinn said.
Later, Stanford Law School attorney Barbara Olshansky, representing three of the four men, seized on Bates' questions to argue that the Bagram detainees were "from all over the world ... and none of them are enemy combatants."
Bates stopped her.
"I don't think you can even allege that none of them are enemy combatants," Bates said. "I don't know any of the facts, and I don't know that you know as much as you have intimated."
Evidence proving where the four men were when they were captured has not been made public, and their lawyers are largely relying on statements from the International Committee of the Red Cross and other detainees who have since been released to build their case for freedom.
Bates said he would consider several other factors in deciding whether the Bagram detainees could sue for freedom. They included:
-Whether his order would extend to all detainees held at Bagram or just the four in Wednesday's case. O'Quinn said the order would likely be applied to many, if not all the estimated 600 suspects there; Olshansky said courts should decide on a case-by-case basis because of varying circumstances surrounding those captured.
-If certain rights can be allowed at Guantanamo since it is a controlled base that has been under sovereign U.S. control for more than a century. O'Quinn argued that they can; Olshansky disagreed and said there is little difference between the two bases since Bagram is under long-term U.S. control as the result of an agreement with the Afghan government.
Olshansky said "there is no more complete analogy or mirror to Guantanamo than this (case)."
Bates said he would issue his ruling "in a reasonable time" but asked both sides how the case might continue under Obama.
O'Quinn said the decision of extending detention rights should be left to Congress. Olshansky, meanwhile, said she hoped Obama would settle it since the Bush administration "has not learned the lessons of Guantanamo."
