A day after the government won the ruling in the Fourth Court of Appeals in Virginia it asked a New York judge to back its imprisonment under similar conditions of Jose Padilla, another person deemed an "enemy combatant."

Soldiers of Afghanistan’s pro-U.S. Northern Alliance seized the Louisiana-born Hamdi in November 2001. Handed over to U.S. forces, he was taken to Washington’s prison camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where he was placed in an iron cage. The same treatment was handed out to hundreds of others. After finally heeding his repeated explanations that he is a U.S. citizen, the U.S. authorities transferred him to a military prison in Norfolk, Virginia, where he has been held ever since.

Hamdi’s imprisonment was a significant step in the acceleration of government attacks on constitutional protections and broader workers’ rights that followed the September 11 attacks. It placed a U.S. citizen in the same position and under the same conditions as hundreds of immigrants caught up in the "antiterrorism" sweeps, only one of whom was ever charged in connection with the attacks.

The three judges on the appeals court panel couched their ruling in arguments about the need to defend the separation of the powers of courts and government--in this case leaving the government a virtually free hand if it presents itself as being at war.

"The safeguards that all Americans have come to expect in criminal prosecutions do not translate neatly to the arena of armed conflict," they added.

Attorney General John Ashcroft called the decision "an important victory for the president’s ability to protect the American people in times of war."  
 
The open-ended ‘war on terrorism’
The lawyers representing Hamdi, who have never been allowed to see their client, said that to hand the government such unchecked powers was "particularly disturbing in the context of a potentially open-ended, as yet-undeclared war, the beginning and end of which is left solely to the president’s discretion."

One of the lawyers, federal public defender Frank Dunham, noted that the prisoner’s complete isolation means that "nobody knows what his version of the facts might be." The attorney said the inmate should be allowed to see a Defense Department document claiming that he affiliated with a Taliban unit and received weapons training.

The appeals court decision overrules the order by U.S. district court Judge Robert Doumar granting requests by Hamdi’s father and lawyers to visit him. Doumar had twice ordered the military to grant Dunham access to Hamdi, insisting that the military should provide more information about his capture, statements, and travels. On each occasion the decision was suspended by the Fourth Circuit Court in Richmond.

On January 9 the Bush administration asked Judge Michael Mukasey of the Federal District Court in Manhattan to reverse his decision allowing Jose Padilla to consult with his lawyers. Padilla, also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir, is another U.S. citizen labeled an "enemy combatant." Like Hamdi he has been jailed without charges, denied access to a lawyer, and held with no prospect of a trial.

Arrested in Chicago last May, Padilla was accused of conspiring to build and detonate a radioactive device, and locked up in a Navy brig in Charleston, South Carolina. Government officials later admitted that Padilla had no plans or materials to make such a weapon.

In its January 9 brief the government disclosed that Padilla has been subjected to "a robust program" of interrogation by military personnel for months. Padilla’s lawyers are demanding a full week of face-to-face meetings with him with no restrictions on the questions they are allowed to ask.

Meanwhile, lawyers for Lynne Stewart--a New York attorney accused of delivering messages to a so-called "terrorist" group--have filed a brief in the federal district court demanding that charges filed against her last year be dropped.

Stewart was attorney for the Egyptian sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman, who was railroaded to prison on frame-up charges of conspiring to blow up New York landmarks, including the World Trade Center. The government claims that Stewart helped Rahman pass on messages to an organization called the Islamic Group.

The issue is one of "pure speech," said Stewart’s lawyers. The government has no right to clamp down, they said, "when a lawyer such as Ms. Stewart--or a newspaper reporter or anyone else--finds out her client’s political views on any given subject and truthfully reports those views to the world."  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home