News and Document archive source
copyrighted material disclaimer at bottom of page

NewsMinesecurityterror-suspectsguantanamo — Viewing Item


Enemy combantant { August 14 2002 }

Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
   http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14862-2002Aug13.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14862-2002Aug13.html

Judge Skewers U.S. Curbs on Detainee


By Tom Jackman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 14, 2002; Page A10


NORFOLK, Aug. 13 -- Line by line, a federal judge today dissected the government's reasoning for holding Yaser Esam Hamdi incommunicado in a Navy brig here and indicated that he didn't think prosecutors provided enough facts for him to decide whether Hamdi should have access to a lawyer.

U.S. District Judge Robert G. Doumar said he would soon rule on a request by Hamdi's father to allow a federal public defender to visit Hamdi, who was captured in Afghanistan with Taliban forces in November, taken to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, with other prisoners, then moved here when he told authorities that he was born in the United States. The government has declared Hamdi an "unlawful enemy combatant," entitled to neither constitutional protections nor international prisoner-of-war status.

Doumar sparred repeatedly with the government's lawyer over why Hamdi was an enemy combatant and what exactly that meant, saying the government appeared to be trying to place unprecedented restrictions on a prisoner's rights.

"I tried valiantly to find a case of any kind, in any court, where a lawyer couldn't meet" with a client, Doumar said. "This case sets the most interesting precedent in relation to that which has ever existed in Anglo-American jurisprudence since the days of the Star Chamber," a reference to English kings' secret court from the 1400s to the 1600s.

Doumar twice has granted requests to visit Hamdi, and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond has twice intervened and prevented the visits. Last month, the appeals court instructed Doumar to revisit the case with greater consideration to national security and the executive branch's constitutional right to wage war.

The government then filed a two-page declaration of facts, by Michael H. Mobbs, a special adviser in the Defense Department, explaining how Hamdi was determined to be an enemy combatant. When Doumar asked the government for additional information, prosecutors declined. The 4th Circuit told Doumar last week to consider first whether the Mobbs declaration was sufficient to decide whether the government had good reason to label Hamdi an enemy combatant.

Doumar began the hearing by saying he would focus exclusively on the Mobbs declaration. But he added, "If I rely on this, then I must pick it apart. And if you gave me the information, then all of this could have been avoided."

For the next hour, he proceeded to pepper Assistant Solicitor General Gregory G. Garre with questions both momentous and minimal: Who is Mobbs? And what qualified him to be a "special adviser"?

Garre said Mobbs was an undersecretary of defense, substantially involved with detainee issues.

"My secretary's familiar with the Hamdi case," the judge said. "Should she decide? She's a special adviser."

Doumar noted that the declaration doesn't say how long Hamdi would need to be detained and for what purpose: "How long does it take to question a man?" the judge asked. "A year? Two years? Ten years? A lifetime?"

Garre said he couldn't answer that now "any better than we could 11 months after Pearl Harbor."

Garre declined to take the judge's bait, frequently referring Doumar to the government's pleadings or the 4th Circuit's rulings. "I tell you, it's hard to get an answer out of you," the judge told Garre at one point.

In a typical exchange, Doumar asked, "Can the military do anything they want with him, without a tribunal?"

"The present detention is lawful," Garre said.

Doumar asked again, "What restraints are there?" Garre said Hamdi had asked to speak to diplomats from Saudi Arabia, where he was raised.

"Can I beg you to answer my question?" Doumar then said. "If the military sat him in boiling oil, would that be lawful?" Garre said he didn't think anyone had suggested that.

Doumar said it seemed too easy to call someone an unlawful combatant and use it to hold someone indefinitely: "If the man next door to you is an unlawful combatant, maybe Mr. Mobbs could say you're an enemy combatant."

Federal Public Defender Frank W. Dunham Jr. pointed out that Mobbs's declaration doesn't use the words "unlawful enemy combatant."

Garre said that Mobbs was merely providing the factual foundation and that the military had made the decision. "The reason why the courts have a limited role is, under our constitutional system, the executive [branch] is the branch which is in the best position to make the military determination," Garre said.

Doumar confirmed with Garre that the government would provide no more information beyond the Mobbs declaration, which he said had "certain omissions that seem substantial," such as specifics about Hamdi's battle experience and why he was brought to Norfolk. "If that is sufficient standing alone," the judge said, "to put him in a cell without windows for six months or 10 months or four months or whatever it is, then so be it. I have some real doubts about that."

If Doumar determines that the Mobbs declaration isn't enough for him to make a decision, he could again order the government to turn over its interrogators' notes on Hamdi, its records of his movements and his chronology of custody.

"I have no desire to have an enemy combatant get out of any status," Doumar said. "However, I do think that due process requires something other than a basic assertion by someone named Mobbs that they have looked at some papers and therefore they have determined he should be held incommunicado. Just think of the impact of that. Is that what we're fighting for?"



2002 The Washington Post Company


abuse
dissent
innocence
interrogation
19 detainees freed { March 24 2003 }
375 detainees at guantanamo not yet charged { April 3 2007 }
Afghan 15 years old had good time in guantanamo
Afghanistan to house new guantanamo jail { January 6 2006 }
Amnesty report calls gitmo gulag of our time { May 25 2005 }
AP observes guantanamo detention center
Arabs sold to guantanamo for bounties
Attempt suicide { August 15 2002 }
Australian hicks may have struck deal { December 6 2003 }
Blair wants britons back
British ex inmates sue rumsfeld for torture
Britons on guantanamo to be released in weeks { January 11 2005 }
Camp x ray
Children held guantanamo bay { April 24 2003 }
Cia runs prison within prison { December 17 2004 }
Commander relieved { October 14 2002 }
Court hears handling of detainees
Denies detainees court { August 1 2002 }
Detained pow photos
Detainee tribunals { November 18 2002 }
Detainees have some powerful friends { November 14 2003 }
Detainees innocent { December 22 2002 }
Detainees unaswered questions { November 22 2002 }
Enemy combantant { August 14 2002 }
Executions may be carried out at guantanamo { January 25 2006 }
Fair gitmo judge is replaced by military { May 31 2008 }
Family finds guantanamo suspect since 1996 { February 25 2004 }
Gauntanamo eyes execution chamber { June 10 2003 }
Gitmo detainees of little security value { June 21 2004 }
Gitmo released then is suicide bomber { May 7 2008 }
Growth of detention base
Guantanamo bay death trials { May 24 2003 }
Guantanamo laywers fired { December 3 2003 }
Guantanamo prisoners were experimented on
Hunder strike called serious by red cross
Lawyers for 13 detainees at guantamo bay challenge detentions { July 3 2004 }
Liberty guantanamo { October 24 2002 }
Loses appeal against due process { March 12 2003 }
Not entitled hearing { March 12 2003 }
Ontheir knees [jpg]
Pentagon ponders detainee transfers { March 11 2005 }
Pentagon wants permanent guantanamo
Pow1 [jpg]
Pow2 [jpg]
Pow3 [jpg]
Pow4 [jpg]
Released documents reveal stories of prisoners { March 4 2006 }
Rice looking forward to guantanamo closure
Ruling stalls prosecution of detainee
Security breaches suicidal detainees guantanamo
Senate strips guantanmo detainees right to sue { November 11 2005 }
Sole spanish prisoner held guantanamo released to spain { February 14 2004 }
Some guantanamo captives free { May 5 2003 }
Supreme court hear case detainees guantanamo { November 10 2003 }
Supreme court will hear first cases involving detainees
Surpreme court appears split on guantanamo prisoners
Swede detained at guantanamo released { July 8 2004 }
Terror detainees will be released
Three guantanamo detainees commit suicide { June 12 2006 }
Three youths returned to afghanistan
Trials to begin for 4 inmates { August 24 2004 }
UN report alleges violations of prisoner rights
Us brings charges to guantanamo inmates { February 24 2004 }
Us could execute british citizens
US hands over french prisoners from Guantanamo
Us releases 26 guantanamo detainees { March 16 2004 }
Us suspends proceedings against britons { July 18 2003 }
Us to release 140 guantanamo bay suspects
Xray inmate saw habib dazed and bleeding { May 22 2004 }

Files Listed: 69



Correction/submissions

CIA FOIA Archive

National Security
Archives
Support one-state solution for Israel and Palestine Tea Party bumper stickers JFK for Dummies, The Assassination made simple