SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico, Sept. 22, 2007
U.S. Govt. Blocks Lawyer Access To Gitmo
Citing New Ruling, Justice Dept. Prevents Attorneys From Seeing Clients At Guantanamo Bay
-
Photo
The Justice Department notified attorneys for up to 60 detainees at Guantanamo Bay that they will not be allowed to visit or contact their clients. (AP)
-
Interactive
Gitmo Tribunals
Detainees on trial, photos and a history of the naval base.
A Justice Department lawyer informed the attorneys of the new restrictions in an e-mail that cited Thursday's dismissal of their cases by District Court Judge Ricardo Urbina in Washington.
"In light of this development, counsel access (both legal mail and in-person visits) is no longer permitted," Justice Department lawyer Andrew I. Warden said in the e-mail.
Urbina's ruling, which covered 16 legal petitions filed on behalf of 40-60 detainees, invalidated an order that establishes rules for contact with detainees, Warden said.
Challenges are still pending for dozens of other detainees with the Supreme Court set to consider whether Congress had the right to strip the prisoners of the right to contest their confinement with petitions of habeas corpus.
The Justice Department letter outlined a series of legal steps that would be required before the attorneys could resume contact with the detainees.
But attorney Wells Dixon said he would most likely not be able to complete those measures in time for a scheduled visit with a Libyan client in October.
That visit is crucial, Dixon said, because he is in the midst of trying to prevent the government from transferring the client back to Libya, where his lawyers fear he will be tortured.
"This is just the latest example of the government's efforts to frustrate counsel access to detainees," he said.
A Pentagon spokesman, Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, said the U.S. was following the laws that govern the legal rights of Guantanamo detainees, and officials were pleased with Urbina's ruling.
"We have afforded detainees at Guantanamo with greater access to attorneys than any other combatants in the history of warfare," Gordon said.
The U.S. holds about 340 men at the detention center in Cuba on suspicion of terrorism or links to al Qaeda or the Taliban. Most of the prisoners have filed petitions of habeas corpus, a legal challenge to their confinement.
Last year, the U.S. Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, which stripped all detainees of the right to file habeas petitions - a fundamental legal right under the U.S. Constitution. On Thursday a Republican filibuster blocked efforts to restore habeus corpus rights to detainees. The Leahy-Specter amendment won a majority of Senators with 56 votes but was four short of the 60 necessary.
The Supreme Court has said it will consider the law in its next term.
By Associated Press Writer Ben Fox
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 103 CommentsEveryone seems to refer to this action as a war, but in reality, it''s an American invasion and occupation.
Bring the troops home... that will take them out of harms way now, won''t it.?
Those who advocate for disgraceful, useless, and criminal enterprises like the Guantanimo Bay torture center, are clearly the greatest enemies of America.
They are all too eager to surrender anything and everything in this country worth defending, just to appease their own sophomoric fears, imaginary foes like "Islamo-fascists", and vile cowardice.
With Americans like this, who needs foreign enemies?
pwrslm,
Re: "Prisoners of War are not citizens of the United States, and should be held in accordance with Geneva Conventions and the UCMJ, NOT Civil Laws."
Any established standard would be preferable to the "make-it-up-as-we-go-along" approach that has been used so far.
Posted by antoniof123
And you came to this decision after you voted how many times for Bush? The warnings were out there waaaaaaay before the first election. By the second election it was clear what his intentions were...so just what changed your mind now?
Posted by Hamiltongrad at 09:54 AM : Sep 22, 2007
You are gravely confused. The people that attacked us on 9/11 WERE NOT FROM IRAQ. THEY WERE FROM AFGHANISTAN. Ne-patriot is 100% right - this is an illegal invasion and occupation.
You need to make sure that you know what you''re talking about before posting. Some people might get confused and actually believe there was some kind of connection between 9/11 and Iraq, which of course there wasn''t.
Posted by pwrslm at 09:14 AM : Sep 22, 2007
YOU FINALLY SAID SOMETHING RIGHT!!!! Good Job!! Apparently reading a book or two has given you some limited brain power.
Now all that you have to do is convince the Bush administration that these people need to be charged with a crime so they can present a defense for themselves. Innocent people shouldn''t be held indefinitely without being charged.
Before all of you neo con, war lovers start shredding me up because of this post, ask yourselves one question:
"If the people there are really terrorists hell bent on destroying America, why did they just release 50 or 60 of them in March?"
It seems to me that if we really are holding dangerous, murdering terrorists, we wouldn''t just release them from prison. Would we?
UnderMyBoot,
I agree with your comment, but I am puzzled as to why
Venezuela made your list.
Have you ever seen the film, "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised"?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxT6erdLmYY
You need to make sure that you know what you''''re talking about before posting. Some people might get confused and actually believe there was some kind of connection between 9/11 and Iraq, which of course there wasn''''t.
Posted by hungry1968 at 11:27 AM : Sep 22, 2007
Obviously, it is you that is gravely confused . Gitmo was established because of the war in Afghanistan, and it holds people suspected of being or having connections with Al-Qaeda or the Taliban.
Even the one prisoner cited in this article was from Jordan. Where do YOU get the Iraq/Gitmo link?
It seems to me that if we really are holding dangerous, murdering terrorists, we wouldn''''t just release them from prison. Would we?
You make no sense. What you are saying is that we need to prove their guilt before we put them in Gitmo? This is a military detention center, not a U.S. Jail. This isn''t a civilian prison, it is a military detention center. The fact that we did release prisoners also proves that we aren''t holding all of them forever, and we are releasing the ones that are cleared. You seem to have a problem with releasing them AND holding them...
We have been told by various members of the Bush cabal, that the Guantanimo prisoners are extremely dangerous and that they represent "the worst of the worst". But as ''hungry1968'' alluded to, only the "dumbest of the dumb" could still believe this, since so many of these wrongfully arrested and illegally held prisoners and torture victims have been released without being charged.
Uh... the difference here is that this is a MILITARY detention center and those being held there are considered enemy combatants.
No sicko. I have a problem with people being scooped up and held as prisoners for THREE OR FOUR YEARS, without being charged with a crime, without being given a chance to prove their innocence, without being able to present their case to a court, and now they can''t even meet with a lawyer!!!
Are you trying to tell me that it takes 3 or 4 years to find out if someone is innocent or not?
Are you also trying to tell me that the government found out that 50 or 60 of them were all innocent at the exact same time, so they released them all at once?
"Gitmo was established because of the war in Afghanistan, and it holds people suspected of being or having connections with Al-Qaeda or the Taliban."
From wikipedia: "Since 2002, the naval base has contained a military prison, the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, for persons alleged to be militant combatants captured in Afghanistan and later in Iraq. Prior to July 11, 2006, the Bush Administration maintained that these detainees are not protected under the Geneva Convention."
Apparently you''re the one that is gravely confused. Maybe you could pick up a copy of the Constitution and / or Declaration of Independence, and see the principles that this country was founded on.
s1ckd09,
Re: "the difference here is that this is a MILITARY detention center and those being held there are considered enemy combatants."
They are only "considered" in this way by goose-stepping, fascist-appeasing, arse-lickers. What they think is irrelevant, and nobody with any integrity cares about their opinions.
Posted by s1ckd09 at 11:57 AM : Sep 22, 2007
If that''s the case, then they should still have the right to meet with legal representation, the ambassador from their home countries, (ex. the Ambassador from Libya that lives in Cuba), or the International Red Cross. War time "enemy combatants" are supposed to have the ability to meet with all three but are DENIED THESE BASIC RIGHTS.
Only a true dictator would ignore the US Constitution AND the Geneva Convention.
I''m not going to deny that statement, but where do get that information from? Because the root of this problem is whether they are considered "POW"s or "enemy combatants."
How can you be so callous?! How can you be so un-American as to deny someone access to a lawyer?!
I hope Al Qaeda catch you and then you''ll know what its like not to have any rights!
Principles mean squat in the Bush regime, they get away with this krap of holding POW''s ilegally for 5 years by simply transferring them off US SOIL.
What about all the people getting released from prison after years of incarceration for murder, rape, robbery that they were found innocent of from DNA, that OUR government locked up because they are right and the everyone else is wrong?
We have such corrupt leaders, helll bent on personal agendas that if we don''t question their actions they will lead us right off the cliff.
I can tell, you are nothing more than a follower and that%u2019s ok, every country needs them, you just need to be more careful who it is that your following.
As for those of you that think that "Enemy Combatants" are different than "Prisoner of War" pull you heads out of your you know what. The government made that up term to circumvent the prisoner of war status so they don''t have to follow the rules of the Geneva Convention. Warrntless wire taps and financial records and e-mail seizers are just another example of total control with out regard to a persons rights. I do believe in protection from dangerous people but that can be done with a transparent check and balance so information not directly related to terror gets collected or saved.
Our government has too many cloaks of secrecy, it''s about time to remove them and the people responsible for putting them their.
You mean like the Canadian that our government picked up, sent to another country in a secret plane and tortured, and then release in yet another country?
How upset would that make you if it were your son or daughter? What would you think if you knew they were innocent, didn''t know where they were and where denied lawyers and then was shot?
Our government has too many cloaks of secrecy, it''''s about time to remove them and the people responsible for putting them their.
Posted by fiteit1 at 01:49 PM : Sep 22, 2007
They are "Unlawfull Enemy Combatants", this is people who do not wear uniforms or abide by the accepted rules of warfare, they indiscriminatley target and kill civilians. They are not covered by the Geneva Convention and are not entitled to the same rights as prisoners of war, and are certainly not entitled to be treat the same as civilian criminal.
Quit try to bend the truth to suit your political goals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by SgtRDS at 02:00 PM : Sep 22, 2007
You''re just in typical Liberal denial over what a bunch of murdering scumbag thugs these Islamists are.
You don''t want to face up to this because your afraid someone will ask you that chilling question "what do you want to do about Islamist Terrorism".
What do you want to do about Islamist Terrorism?
Even the one prisoner cited in this article was from Jordan. Where do YOU get the Iraq/Gitmo link?
Posted by s1ckd09 at 11:45 AM : Sep 22, 2007
Gitmo or Guantanimo Bay was establighed as a military base/harbor as a condition of freeing the island of Cuba from Spain, when Teddy Roosevelt charged up san juan hill. It has been used for decades for US military/naval ships to dock, resupply, and undergo necessary exercises to determine the combat readiness of ships and crews.
www.conservativemusiconline.com
Posted by ghostcommand at 03:27 PM : Sep 22, 2007
OMG.. are you that dumb???
"Why would they want to isolate the detainees from the rest of the world? Why did they not just detain them in Afghanistan?"
Because in Gitmo, the prisoners are under much tighter security, where opportunities to escape or be busted out are practically eliminated.
"I am beginning to think that the Bush Group either had something to do with 911 or knew it was going to happen and did nothing."
It is scary to think there are people in this country that can believe something like this. Get your head out of the conspiracy world and back into the real world.
Posted by conserva at 04:09 PM : Sep 22, 2007
Got sell your *** somewhere else or pay cbsnews for the advertising space!
Posted by ghostcommand at 03:27 PM : Sep 22, 2007
You must live in Roswell NM, conspiracy nut-job.
Couple of quotes from your favorite terrorist thug nation
Israel should be eliminated" and "No Iranian Muslim, no Muslim recognises Israel," were among the slogans borne on the back of military vehicles, quoting the words of Iran''s revolutionary founder Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
"Israel has to be wiped off the map," read another Khomeini quote which aroused worldwide controversy when it was repeated by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005.
Quit try to bend the truth to suit your political goals.
this is where you are wrong, first off you can claim them to be unlawful enemy combatants when they werent in battle to start with. even the military commision thats interviewing them are questioning the charges against them as being none, hearsay, or manufactured. bush has gone outside the legal system by changing thier status each time the courts rule against him, that should tell you something there, btw did you know that before an australian was released to thier country they insisted that he sign documents that he couldnt talk about or sue the bush for his incarceration in gitmo? if it was all so legal and as bush says why is he demanding this? its because they arent what bush says they are and bush knows he would be charged with criomes if they get out and the truth be known. kinda reminds one of the nazi''s during wwII with thier detention centers.
I''m sorry, but you seem to have mistaken me for someone who gives a sh*it about your fascist opinion. I don''t.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 103 Comments