The first prisoners were seized in Afghanistan in January 2002 and taken to Guantánamo, blindfolded and shackled. A number of men were abducted in other countries such as Bosnia. The prison camp, called Camp Delta, now includes residents of 44 countries. U.S. officials rationalize the kidnappings by labeling the men “Al-Qaeda suspects” and “terrorists.”

Families of prisoners in Australia, United Kingdom, and Sweden have been demanding to have the prisoners returned. At the same time, the British and Australian governments, in particular, have backed Washington fully in its “war on terror.”

The Australian government, which criticized Madrid for withdrawing Spanish troops from Iraq, has also sided with the U.S. government on the Guantánamo detentions. Australian prime minister John Howard said recently he is satisfied that David Hicks—one of the two Australians held at Guantánamo who may soon face a military tribunal—will not have his rights infringed when the trial takes place.

Last March, five prisoners were released into British custody. All but one, Jamaludeen al-Harith, were jailed on arrival in the United Kingdom. Four other British nationals remain in Guantánamo, two of whom are slated to face military tribunals, which London has criticized. At the same time, UK foreign secretary Jack Staw has defended the detentions, saying, “Valuable information has been gained, which has helped to protect the international community from further al-Qaeda and terrorist attacks.”

Al-Harith told the press he was beaten, drugged, and subjected to psychological abuse. In Afghanistan, he had been a prisoner of the Taliban until U.S. forces toppled the regime. He was then taken to Guantánamo.

Three youths aged 13-15 were released in January. The Pentagon has acknowledged that other juveniles still remain locked up at Camp Delta. In total, 146 detainees have been released since the prison camp opened.

The case currently before the Supreme Court is being argued on narrow grounds: whether the Guantánamo prisoners have the right to ask a federal court to give them a hearing and whether the President can be required to provide evidence that justifies imprisonment.

The Bush administration’s position is that the Guantánamo naval base is outside the jurisdiction of U.S. courts because it is on Cuban territory, although it remains there against the will of the Cuban people and government.

Attorney John Gibbons argued against this position before the court, saying that U.S. officials “assert their actions are absolutely immune from judicial examination whenever they elect to detain foreign nationals outside our borders.” They “would create a lawless enclave,” he said.

“The United States is at war,” responded U.S. solicitor general Theodore Olsen, the government’s top attorney.

This case is related to two other habeas corpus lawsuits, Rasul v. Bush and al-Odah v. Rumsfeld, filed last year by relatives of 16 prisoners who are British, Australian, and Kuwaiti residents. In January, 17 organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch, filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the non-U.S. citizens’ appeal.

On April 28 the Court will hear the cases of Yaser Esam Hamdi and José Padilla—U.S. citizens designated “enemy combatants” by Washington. Their attorneys are challenging the government’s right to hold them indefinitely without charges. Until recently neither had seen a lawyer or knew they had cases before the Supreme Court.

Last July, the Bush administration declared six Guantánamo prisoners to be eligible to face what would be the first U.S. military tribunals since World War II. In early April, Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, a lawyer for Yemeni citizen Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who is one of the six, filed a suit charging that the planned tribunals are unconstitutional. Swift said that his client was held in solitary confinement and denied legal counsel, in order to coerce a confession. Swift says authorities told Hamdan that he would never be freed unless he confessed to unspecified crimes.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home