Detainees at Guantanamo Seek Their Day in Court

Prisoners being held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should be given the chance to prove in court that they have been mistakenly labeled as “enemy combatants” and have been unlawfully detained, their attorney said Thursday.

“Since Day One, these people have been saying you’ve got the wrong guys. They want a fair hearing to show that,” attorney Thomas Wilner told a U.S. appeals court during more than two hours of arguments.

But Justice Department lawyer Gregory Katsas repeated the Bush administration’s position that the prisoners were not entitled to any due process rights, and he defended the military tribunals set up to review their cases.

About 500 prisoners are being held at the Guantanamo facility after the U.S. government designated them as enemy combatants. Only four have been charged with a crime.

Many are suspected members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban who were captured in the wake of the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Many have been held since the prison camp opened at Guantanamo in January 2002.

Under the military’s review process, 38 prisoners, or about 7% of the detainees, were determined to not be enemy combatants despite their earlier designation.

The appeals court considered a pair of Guantanamo cases after two different U.S. District Court judges in Washington came to opposite conclusions in January.

One judge ruled the prisoners had the constitutional right not to be deprived of liberty without due process, and that the military tribunals were constitutionally flawed.

The other judge said the prisoners had no constitutional rights.

Wilner argued that the prisoners did have fundamental rights under the Constitution, that they also could use habeas corpus to challenge their detention and had the right to a review in court.

Under that law, the government must give a legal and factual basis for the detention, he said.

All three appellate judges sharply questioned the government’s lawyer.

Judge David Sentelle questioned the government’s position that the prisoners had no rights because the base was outside the United States. “What does Cuba really have left in terms of sovereignty over Guantanamo?” he asked.

Judge A. Raymond Randolph repeatedly asked why the prisoners under the habeas law would not be entitled to some determination in court on whether they have been held under lawful authority.

Sentelle and Randolph both questioned whether the courts could defer to the judgments of the military tribunals.

Judge Judith Rogers questioned whether the military tribunals provided sufficient legal protections.

Lawyers for the prisoners have said the tribunals improperly denied detainees legal representation and provided no opportunity for them to rebut the allegations and evidence against them.

The three-judge panel is expected to rule sometime next year.

Any decision is likely to be appealed to the full appeals court or to the Supreme Court.