Two of the security detainee cases covered in the report concern Jose Padilla and the Odah case. Federal courts issued rulings in both of these cases today. The rulings could be described as “one step forward and one step backward for the rule of law,” said Michael Posner, Executive Director, of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights.

Case of José Padilla
In the case of U.S. citizen José Padilla, the so-called “dirty bomber,” U.S. District Judge Michael Mukasey today rejected the Bush administration’s continuing attempts to bar Padilla from meeting with his lawyers. Judge Mukasey reaffirmed a prior ruling (from December) that Padilla, held without charge or trial in a U.S. military brig, had the right to meet with his defense lawyers—a decision that the government is now likely to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

“We applaud Judge Mukasey‘s ruling for allowing Padilla to see his lawyers,” said Posner. “His decision reflects the kind of judicial independence that is essential to preserving every American’s liberty.”

The Odah and Rasul Cases
In cases brought by the families of Guantanamo detainees—Odah, et al v. the United States—the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held today that U.S. courts do not have jurisdiction to review the cases of those detained at the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, because the U.S. base is outside the sovereign territory of the United States. This is despite the fact that Guantanamo Bay is under the direct and exclusive control of the U.S. government—and has been since 1903, under a perpetual lease signed by the United States and Cuba.

The Court of Appeals decision upheld an earlier district court ruling. The cases were brought by the families of Australian, British, and Kuwaiti detainees, who were apprehended in Afghanistan or Pakistan and held at the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay. Most of the families argue that their family members were apprehended either by mistake or by bounty hunters. They seek some legal forum in which they can present evidence to support their claims that their family members were never involved in the Taliban, Al Qaeda, or any other terrorist activities.

“The U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the administration’s view that U.S. courts cannot review the basis for detentions at Guantanamo. In effect, the court is looking the other way,” said Posner. “The administration and courts are saying that these men have no legal remedy to challenge the basis of their detention.”

BACKGROUND ON PADILLA AND GUANTANAMO
CASES - AND SECURITY DETAINEES

The Lawyers Committee’s report “Imbalance of Powers” is available at www.lchr.org.

The security detainee chapter covers the Padilla and the Odah cases as well as the U.S. government’s increasing reliance on ad hoc measures to deal with those suspected of ties to al Qaeda, including: the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens; the proposed use of military commissions; the status of detainees held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and reports of the use of torture. For full text click here.