Al Qaeda Suit Called Longshot

A Los Angeles federal judge expressed “grave doubts” Tuesday about whether he has jurisdiction to consider a petition demanding that suspected Al Qaeda terrorists being held at Guantanamo Naval Base be brought before a civilian court.

Nevertheless, U.S. District Judge A. Howard Matz ordered lawyers in the case to submit legal briefs on the jurisdictional issue and set a Feb. 14 hearing date to consider the matter.

The habeas corpus petition was filed over the weekend by attorney Stephen Yagman on behalf of a coalition of clergy, academics and civil rights lawyers.

It is the first court challenge to the Bush administration’s detention of Al Qaeda suspects taken into custody in Afghanistan and transferred to the U.S. Navy base in Cuba.

The petition contends that the detainees are being held in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Geneva Convention governing the treatment of war prisoners. It demands that U.S. officials produce the prisoners in a U.S. court and accord them due process guarantees.

Tuesday’s hearing was devoted exclusively to the jurisdiction question.

Assistant U.S. Atty. Douglas Axel asked the judge to throw out the petition because none of the detainees or their captors is within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles court.

In an order issued later in the day, Matz directed government lawyers and Yagman to answer a number of questions, including:

* Must Guantanamo be within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States for the court to exercise authority? Does the United States’ leasehold on the base make it subject to the court’s jurisdiction?

* If U.S. authorities convene a military commission to decide the detainees’ fate, would the court have the right to intervene?

* To what extent do the detainees have rights under the Geneva Convention?

* Assuming they are “unlawful combatants” rather than “prisoners of war,” what rights do they have?

* Even if the federal court has jurisdiction, is there a more appropriate or convenient forum for adjudicating the case?

Matz gave the government until Jan. 31 to file a brief answering those questions and raising any further objections to Yagman’s petition. Yagman has until Feb. 8 to respond.

In a highly unusual procedure, Yagman served the petition Saturday at the home of U.S. District Judge Robert M. Takasugi. Matz was selected at random to hear the case in accordance with federal court procedures.