Judge in 9/11 case weighs whether Constitution applies at Guantanamo

GUANTANAMO BAY U.S. NAVAL BASE, Cuba Thu Oct 18, 2012 4:42pm EDT

1 of 3. The flag over a war crimes courtroom in Camp Justice at US Naval Base Guantanamo Bay in Cuba in this photo reviewed by the U.S. Department of Defense on October 17, 2012, day three of pre-trial hearings for the five Guantanamo prisoners accused of orchestrating the 9/11.

Credit: Reuters/Michelle Shephard/Pool

Related Topics

GUANTANAMO BAY U.S. NAVAL BASE, Cuba (Reuters) - The Guantanamo tribunal judge should deal with constitutional challenges individually as they arise rather than make a blanket presumption the U.S. Constitution applies in the trial of five men accused of plotting the September 11 attacks, a U.S. prosecutor argued on Thursday.

The matter arose in a pretrial hearing for alleged September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Pakistani, Yemeni and Saudi captives facing charges that could lead to their execution.

They are being tried at the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base in a tribunal system that Congress established to try non-U.S. citizens on terrorism charges.

Critics have long charged that the Guantanamo base in Cuba was chosen to hold such detainees mainly because former President George W. Bush's administration believed it would put them outside the reach of U.S. law.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that although they were non-citizens held outside the United States, Guantanamo prisoners had the constitutional "habeas corpus" right to challenge their detention in court and make the government show evidence for holding them.

It said the United States had "de facto sovereignty" because the Cuban base is entirely under U.S. control.

It did not address whether Guantanamo detainees had other rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, such as the right to due process, the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, or the right to confront accusers.

Lawyers defending the 9/11 suspects asked the judge, Army Colonel James Pohl, to issue an advisory opinion that the Constitution applied to the tribunals, except where the prosecution can prove that recognizing a particular right would be "impractical and anomalous."

Prosecutor Clay Trivett said that when Congress enacted the law underpinning the Guantanamo tribunals, it clearly did not intend for defendants to have all the rights they would have had if they were tried in the U.S. federal courts.

But he urged the judge to avoid a sweeping, generalized ruling, calling it premature.

"It's not fair to ask you for an advisory opinion on issues that may not arise," Trivett said. "We need to take this up issue by issue."

Pohl took the arguments under advisory, but did not indicate when he would rule.

(Editing by Kevin Gray and Peter Cooney)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (6)
Our constitution wasn’t intended to define how we treat Americans, it was designed with the intention of how PEOPLE are designated to be treated

Oct 18, 2012 5:25pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
absolutely not~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

Oct 18, 2012 5:35pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
absolutely not~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

Oct 18, 2012 5:35pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.