- Archives

The tribunals to determine if someone is an unlawful enemy combatant were put in place with unusual speed after the Bush administration suffered a defeat in the Supreme Court in June. In the ruling, the court held that the federal judiciary's reach extended to Guantánamo Bay and that prisoners there must receive an opportunity to challenge their detentions before a judge or other "neutral decision maker." Defense Department officials said they hoped the Combatant Status Review Tribunals, as they are called, might satisfy the court's requirement. A wide array of legal analysts, including some in the government, have said they believe that the combatant review tribunals fall far short of what the court required and that they expect that the issue may be before the federal courts again soon. Neil R. Sonnett, a Miami lawyer who heads a special American Bar Association panel to monitor the military proceedings at Guantánamo, said on Monday that the combatant review tribunals did not come close to meeting the court's standard. [more

]

The hearing is conducted by three officers and the detainee is given a "personal representative" who is neither a lawyer nor an advocate. The representative, a military officer, is supposed to pass along to the panel any evidence the detainee wishes to offer as well as any incriminating evidence the detainee has told him.
The detainee may also be denied information about how, where and from whom the information about the accusations supporting the enemy combatant charge originated if officials deem it classified.
Human rights groups as well as many prominent international lawyers have asserted that the United States violated its obligations under the Geneva Conventions for more than two years by refusing up to now to hold individual hearings to determine if the detainees qualified for prisoner-of-war status.
Guantanamo: What Kind of Justice? [more ]