Publication Date:
Source:
Author:
An editorial in the Washington Post supports the right of foreign detainees who are being held in U.S. custody in a prison at the U.S. Air Force Base at Bagram, Afghanistan--and who are represented by International Human Rights Clinic of Stanford Law School’s Mills Legal Clinic acting as co-counsel with the International Justice Network--to "meaningfully challenge" their detention "through internationally recognized legal avenues."
Visiting Professor Barbara Olshansky, who directs the clinic, is presenting arguments in a hearing before Judge John D. Bates in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The IHRC represents: Fadi Al Maqaleh, Haji Wazir and Redha Al Najar. This hearing is a case of first impression on the issue of whether detainees in at Bagram Prison have the right to challenge their indefinite detention by the U.S. Government in an Article III Court based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Boumediene, which extended the writ of habeas corpus to Guantanamo detainees.
The Washington Post's editors wrote:
EVEN IN its waning days and despite several rebukes by the Supreme Court, the Bush administration continues to espouse extreme theories about the detention of terrorism suspects. The most recent example involves detainees at the Bagram air base in Afghanistan, including Haji Wazir, an Afghan businessman. Mr. Wazir was captured in Karachi, Pakistan, and has been held at Bagram without charge for more than six years. He has challenged his detention in a habeas corpus filing in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where Judge John D. Bates is to hear the matter today. The administration's response: Mr. Wazir's case should be thrown out because federal judges have no power to review the administration's decisions to detain non-U.S. citizens overseas. The administration further argues that it may unilaterally hold Mr. Wazir and other Bagram detainees indefinitely, even though they enjoy fewer legal protections than those available under the shoddy and discredited military tribunals at the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
...
Even if the administration is correct to challenge federal court oversight -- and that is a big if, given that the Supreme Court has blessed judicial review of Guantanamo detentions -- it has no justification to deny Mr. Wazir and the other detainees the opportunity to meaningfully challenge his detention through internationally recognized legal avenues and through a more robust process than exists at Bagram. By refusing even these basic accommodations, the Bush administration once again is embracing a hard line that is neither warranted nor productive. And it is all but inviting the kind of judicial intervention that it has long sought to avoid and that could leave the next administration less able to adapt to the new war footing.