February
1, 2008
Court
Won't Reconsider Guantanamo Ruling
By Matt Apuzzo
Associated
Press
WASHINGTON—A federal appeals court refused Friday to
reconsider a ruling broadening its own authority to scrutinize
evidence against detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
The decision is a setback for the Bush administration, which was
displeased by the court's three-judge ruling in July and had urged
all 10 judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit to review it. The administration said the decision
jeopardized national security.
The ruling held that, when Guantanamo Bay detainees bring a court
challenge to their status as "enemy combatants," judges
must review all the evidence, not just the evidence the military
chooses.
After criminal trials, appeals courts are limited in what evidence
they can review. But hearings at Guantanamo Bay are not trials.
Detainees are not allowed to have lawyers and the Pentagon decides
what evidence to present. And unlike in criminal trials, the government
is not obligated to turn over evidence that the defendant might
be innocent.
"For this court to ignore that reality would be to proceed
as though the Congress envisioned judicial review as a mere charade,"
Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg wrote Friday.
If the military reviewers designate a prisoner an enemy combatant,
the prisoner can challenge that decision before the appeals court
in Washington. The court was divided 5-5 on whether to reconsider
its earlier decision. A majority of judges must vote to reconsider
a ruling as a full court.
The Supreme Court is watching the case as it considers a landmark
case challenging whether the military tribunal system is unconstitutional.
With the high court waiting, it would not be in the public's interest
to reconsider the case and risk delaying a Supreme Court decision,
Judge Merrick B. Garland wrote.
Judge A. Raymond Randolph issued a stern retort.
"We think that it is more important to decide the case correctly,"
Randolph wrote on behalf of the dissenting judges, "and that
a correct decision would be of more assistance to the High Court."
It is unusual for judges to issue written opinions when denying
such requests. The decision to issue a multiple written opinions
underscores both how important and contentious the issue is.
"We are disappointed with today's decision," Justice
Department spokesman Erik Ablin said. "All of the judges
recognized the importance of the case and the court was evenly
divided. We are reviewing the decision and considering all of
our options."
Copyright 2008 Associated Press
