This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/americas/7128523.stm

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Guantanamo legal showdown begins Guantanamo legal showdown begins
(about 4 hours later)
The US Supreme Court is deciding whether inmates at Guantanamo Bay camp should have the right to contest their detention in US civilian courts. The US Supreme Court has begun considering whether Guantanamo Bay inmates should be able to contest their detention in US civilian courts.
Two cases challenge the removal by Congress of the "habeas corpus" right of detainees under the US constitution to be heard by an independent judge.Two cases challenge the removal by Congress of the "habeas corpus" right of detainees under the US constitution to be heard by an independent judge.
If the court rules in their favour, indefinite detention under military control could be declared unlawful.If the court rules in their favour, indefinite detention under military control could be declared unlawful.
The court's judges have ruled against the US government in two earlier cases.The court's judges have ruled against the US government in two earlier cases.
The founders of our nation created a constitution dedicated to the protection of liberty, not one that turns a blind eye to indefinite detention Seth Waxman,lawyer representing detainees Supreme Court showdown If the US law doesn't apply, it is a law-free zone Seth Waxman,lawyer representing detainees Supreme Court showdown
The first concerned the status of Guantanamo Bay in relation to US territory.The first concerned the status of Guantanamo Bay in relation to US territory.
In 2004, the judges found that existing law gave federal courts the right to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals held at Guantanamo Bay because of the unique control the US government had over the land leased from Cuba. In 2004, the judges found that existing law gave federal courts the right to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals held at Guantanamo Bay - the right of "habeas corpus" - because of the unique control the US government had over the land leased from Cuba.
Two years later, it ruled that the president did not have the authority to order the "enemy combatants" there to face military commissions.Two years later, it ruled that the president did not have the authority to order the "enemy combatants" there to face military commissions.
The government responded both times by obtaining Congressional legislation restricting judicial review of the detentions. The government responded both times by obtaining congressional legislation restricting judicial review of the detentions.
The Military Commissions Act (MCA) passed in 2006 removed the right of habeas corpus and set up commissions to try detainees who were not US citizens.The Military Commissions Act (MCA) passed in 2006 removed the right of habeas corpus and set up commissions to try detainees who were not US citizens.
'Unconstitutional' 'Law-free zone'
Now the two test cases challenging the MCA brought by Lakhdar Boumediene, an Algerian arrested in Bosnia in 2001, and Fawzi al-Odah, a Kuwaiti seized in Pakistan in 2002, have been consolidated into one and brought on behalf of 37 foreign nationals who remain among the 305 detainees at Guantanamo Bay.Now the two test cases challenging the MCA brought by Lakhdar Boumediene, an Algerian arrested in Bosnia in 2001, and Fawzi al-Odah, a Kuwaiti seized in Pakistan in 2002, have been consolidated into one and brought on behalf of 37 foreign nationals who remain among the 305 detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
The detainees now enjoy greater procedural protections and statutory rights to challenge their wartime detentions than any other captured enemy combatants in the history of war Paul ClementUS Solicitor-General Detainees' profilesQuick guide: Guantanamo As aliens held outside the sovereign territory of the United States, petitioners do not enjoy any rights Paul ClementUS Solicitor-General Detainees' profilesQuick guide: Guantanamo
Their lawyers argue that habeas corpus should extend to the facility even though it is technically not US sovereign territory.Their lawyers argue that habeas corpus should extend to the facility even though it is technically not US sovereign territory.
"The founders of our nation created a constitution dedicated to the protection of liberty, not one that turns a blind eye to indefinite detention without a meaningful opportunity to be heard," one of the lawyers said in a brief on their behalf. On Wednesday, court justices questioned lawyers from both sides.
"The MCA's purported repeal of habeas is unconstitutional," he said. Seth Waxman, lawyer for one of the inmates, said many prisoners had been held for six years with "no prospect" of challenging their detention in any meaningful way.
"The US government has complete jurisdiction and control over this place. No other law applies," Mr Waxman said.
"If the US law doesn't apply, it is a law-free zone."
The hearing attracted demonstrators and spectators
But Solicitor General Paul Clement said the prisoners at Guantanamo have more rights to contest their detention than foreigners held by the US outside its territory have had in the past.
"This is a remarkable liberalisation," he said.
The US constitution states that habeas corpus "shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it".The US constitution states that habeas corpus "shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it".
Solicitor General Paul Clement has responded by saying in his brief that the US does not own Guantanamo Bay and therefore the writ of habeas corpus does not run there. Mr Clement said in his brief to the court that the US does not own Guantanamo Bay and therefore the writ of habeas corpus does not run there.
A decision by the Supreme Court is expected by the summer
"As aliens held outside the sovereign territory of the United States, petitioners do not enjoy any rights," he said."As aliens held outside the sovereign territory of the United States, petitioners do not enjoy any rights," he said.
"The Military Commissions Act of 2006 validly divested the District Court of jurisdiction over petitioners' habeas corpus petitions." Outside Wednesday's hearing two dozen protesters, some in orange jump suits, shouted "restore habeas corpus", the Associated Press news agency reported.
Mr Clement also argued that the military Combatant Status Review Tribunals provided an adequate substitute for habeas proceedings. The court is expected to decide the case by mid-2008.
"The detainees now enjoy greater procedural protections and statutory rights to challenge their wartime detentions than any other captured enemy combatants in the history of war," he said. "Yet they claim an entitlement to more."
Both sides' arguments will be heard in a one-hour session expected to begin at 1000 (1500 GMT) on Wednesday. A decision is expected by next summer.
'Traumatising'
Ahead of the hearing, Capt James Yee, a US Army Muslim chaplain assigned to Guantanamo Bay between 2002 to 2003 who was accused and then cleared of espionage, told the BBC that the lack of due process and indefinite detention was taking a serious toll on the prisoners there.
"I think... many of these prisoners are perhaps losing hope in the entire situation. Already we've seen four prisoners in the last two years commit suicide," he told the World Today.
Capt Yee, who spent 76 days in solitary confinement before all charges against him were dropped and he was given an honourable discharge, said all of the detainees would be scarred for life by their experience at Guantanamo.
"My own personal experience... was traumatising not only to me but also my family," he said.
However, the former chaplain said he doubted that many of the detainees would be aware of the significance of the Supreme Court hearing and therefore would not have had their hopes raised.