• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Government limiting Guantanamo detainee access to lawyers

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Gaborn

Member
The Obama administration has begun limiting the legal rights of terror suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba, telling a federal judge Tuesday the government alone should decide when the prisoners deserve regular access to their counsel.

In a 52-page filing, Justice Department lawyers said they have started restricting when Guantanamo prisoners can challenge their detention in a Washington-based federal court. If approved, any relaxing of the rules would be made on a case-by-case basis at the exclusive discretion of military officials, not by the courts.

At issue is whether a Supreme Court decision on detainee rights from 2008 gives federal courts the ultimate power to control so-called "habeas" petitions from foreign combatants in U.S. military custody. Volunteer private lawyers say they deserve regular access to their imprisoned clients, even if there is no active habeas challenge pending in court, or any pending charges.

Under the proposed changes, the Navy base commander at Guantanamo would have sole veto power over attorney access, as well as access to classified material, including information provided directly by the detainees from interrogations.

"The dispute thus before the Court, though important, is quite narrow," said the government in its legal filing. "The only question presented is whether detainees who have neither current nor impending habeas petitions are entitled to" challenge continued access to counsel. "The answer to that question is 'no.'"

The case is before Chief Judge Royce Lamberth. His court has been handling the many appeals filed by the prisoners. There are currently 168 detainees - all male - in the Guantanamo facility, most of whom do not have pending charges. Five Muslim men labeled "high-value detainees" are being prosecuted before a military commission for their alleged leadership roles in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

In the so-called Boumediene ruling in 2008, the high court said "enemy combatants" held overseas in U.S. military custody have a right to a "meaningful review" of their detention in the civilian legal justice system. It would force the government to present evidence and justify keeping the prisoners indefinitely, without charges. But a federal appeals court in Washington has since refused to order the release of any detainee filing a habeas corpus writ, in some cases rejecting such orders from lower-court judges.

The administration has argued it does not seek to restrict lawyers who have an active legal appeal, but that the rights of detainees shrink once they have filed their first habeas challenge. The military says lawyers must now agree to the new conditions in order to have continued access to their clients and to any classified information the military would deem to release.

And lawyers would be prohibited from using any information they gather that might help the prisoners appearing before a Periodic Review Board. PRBs are newly designed panels of military officials to decide whether a Guantanamo inmate should continue to be held, and whether that person is a national security threat. Those boards were put in place by President Barack Obama by executive order, but have not been fully implemented.

"Executive Order 13,567 does not provide detainees who undergo PRB review with a judicially enforceable right to counsel, or any justification for asking the Court to impose a counsel-access regime on the PRB process other than the one developed, per the Order's direction, by the Secretary of Defense," said the government. "As a general matter, executive orders are viewed as management tools for implementing the President's policies, not as legally binding documents that may be enforced against the Executive Branch."

The government said the court's power to intervene was limited, and urged Judge Lamberth to deny the request guaranteeing attorney access. A court hearing is set for August 17 on the legal question.
Click to expand...

Story Here
 
F

FStop7

Banned
This is impossible because the first thing Obama was going to do is close Guantanamo. Therefore there is no one there to be denied access to a lawyer.
 
jchap

jchap

Member
Obama wanted to shut this place down. It was a huge campaign promise. The fact that even he can not rationalize that decision says something about the types of people who are being held there. Some of these people can not be released and should not be given complete access to civilian legal representation as harsh as that sounds.
 
D

Devolution

Member
jchap said:
Obama wanted to shut this place down. It was a huge campaign promise. The fact that even he can not rationalize that decision says something about the types of people who are being held there. Some of these people can not be released and should not be given complete access to civilian legal representation as harsh as that sounds.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. Plus there have been people kept there who didn't do fuck all. Go read some articles on that place.
 
Rentahamster

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
jchap said:
Obama wanted to shut this place down. It was a huge campaign promise. The fact that even he can not rationalize that decision says something about the types of people who are being held there. Some of these people can not be released and should not be given complete access to civilian legal representation as harsh as that sounds.
Click to expand...

That leaves us with two options:

Either it really is like that, or he knowingly made campaign promises he knew full well that he would not or could not fulfill in order to get elected. Or a little of both.
 
W

Wazzim

Banned
jchap said:
Obama wanted to shut this place down. It was a huge campaign promise. The fact that even he can not rationalize that decision says something about the types of people who are being held there. Some of these people can not be released and should not be given complete access to civilian legal representation as harsh as that sounds.
Click to expand...

These people are humans no matter what the allegedly did.
 
N

nyong

Banned
It almost makes me wish that Bush were still in power just so people would still give a shit. From tears and protests to apathy in one election.

Gross.
 
W

WeAreStarStuff

Member
Mumei said:
It already happened.
Click to expand...

Naturally.


I watched this documentary a few years ago. Really gave me pause.


taxidarksidecover1.jpg
Click to expand...
 
D

DTKT

Member
jchap said:
Obama wanted to shut this place down. It was a huge campaign promise. The fact that even he can not rationalize that decision says something about the types of people who are being held there. Some of these people can not be released and should not be given complete access to civilian legal representation as harsh as that sounds.
Click to expand...

It's not about releasing them. It's about providing legal counsel. Denying them this goes against the basic fundamentals of freedom in what I consider to be a modern society. I'm not American but everytime I hear Guantanamo mentionned, it just cringe. It's a terrible think to realize that such a place exist in a civilized society. It's truly disgusting.

No matter what you the so called "prisoners" in Guantanamo, they are human beings and should be treated as such.
 
C

commedieu

Banned
nyong said:
It almost makes me wish that Bush were still in power just so people would still give a shit. From tears and protests to apathy in one election.

Gross.
Click to expand...

And what do you get out of people giving bush shit? Your "GOTCHA!" moment? Politics are mainly bullshit, and everyone lies. Instead of actually fighting for the process to work in favor of the civilian population, too many of you are arguing over who is right about some meaningless comment made by a politician, to prove that he lies just as much as the next guy. While you lose rights all along the way. Keep arguing about it, keep having deep divided party lines. Its worked smashingly well for the population thus far.

Obama lost the little respect I had left for the office. You can't treat human beings this way, and once we do, theres nothing stopping them from doing it to the rest of us. Some of them were just walking while arab. Now they are held indefinitely...? We spend so much, and waste so much life on protecting us from people whose latest great weapon off mass destruction was an underwear bomb. So far, domestic terrorism is far more alarming than anything these guys have managed to pull off in the past 10 years. But people actually believe that this is the right course for human beings, as they are so dangerous to our way of life.
 
jchap

jchap

Member
DTKT said:
It's not about releasing them. It's about providing legal counsel. Denying them this goes against the basic fundamentals of freedom in what I consider to be a modern society. I'm not American but everytime I hear Guantanamo mentionned, it just cringe. It's a terrible think to realize that such a place exist in a civilized society. It's truly disgusting.

No matter what you the so called "prisoners" in Guantanamo, they are human beings and should be treated as such.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying no legal access just not unlimited access to civilian lawyers (even when no case or trial is pending). That type of scenario opens the doors to having coordination through an intermediary. The same kinds of restrictions have been placed on civilians considered to be giving orders to organized crime syndicates from prison. In these cases there are also classification and security concerns to consider.
 
C

commedieu

Banned
jchap said:
I'm not saying no legal access just not unlimited access to civilian lawyers (even when no case or trial is pending). That type of scenario opens the doors to having coordination through an intermediary.
Click to expand...

So you're convinced that there is a 247 terrorist threat to blow up buildings in the USA? That is why its ok to remove civil rights from people, right? Something along those lines...?

God damn they did it. Safe to say, Terrorism won.
 
Trickster

Trickster

Member
Damn this topic confused me. I remember closing guantanamo was suck a big issue in obama's election running. I actually thought it had been closed (I'm not american, cut me some slack please). The fuck is he doing?
 
ReBurn

ReBurn

Gold Member
jchap said:
I'm not saying no legal access just not unlimited access to civilian lawyers (even when no case or trial is pending). That type of scenario opens the doors to having coordination through an intermediary.
Click to expand...

I would think that being held with no pending trial would be the perfect reason to want to see a lawyer.
 
G

Gaborn

Member
jchap said:
I'm not saying no legal access just not unlimited access to civilian lawyers (even when no case or trial is pending). That type of scenario opens the doors to having coordination through an intermediary. The same kinds of restrictions have been placed on civilians considered to be giving orders to organized crime syndicates from prison. In these cases there are also classification and security concerns to consider.
Click to expand...

So you're saying the military should be free to interrogate someone indefinitely as long as there is no current or pending case and do so without an attorney representing their interests should the "interrogation" violate the law? Didn't we see that in Abu Ghraib?
 
C

commedieu

Banned
Gaborn said:
So you're saying the military should be free to interrogate someone indefinitely as long as there is no current or pending case and do so without an attorney representing their interests should the "interrogation" violate the law? Didn't we see that in Abu Ghraib?
Click to expand...

Thats literally what he is saying. Interested to see him re-word it. They don't deserve unlimited access to a lawyer...
 
P

pigeon

Banned
jchap said:
Obama wanted to shut this place down. It was a huge campaign promise. The fact that even he can not rationalize that decision says something about the types of people who are being held there.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Foreigners.

jchap said:
I'm not saying no legal access just not unlimited access to civilian lawyers (even when no case or trial is pending). That type of scenario opens the doors to having coordination through an intermediary.
Click to expand...

There is, as yet, no evidence that anybody in Guantanamo Bay is actually a terrorist, as far as I know.

Rentahamster said:
That leaves us with two options:

Either it really is like that, or he knowingly made campaign promises he knew full well that he would not or could not fulfill in order to get elected. Or a little of both.
Click to expand...

Or here's a third possibility: Obama already signed an executive order to close Gitmo, and was blocked by Congress on multiple occasions from carrying it out. The funny thing about this possibility is that it made the news, yet somehow, mysteriously, you forgot it happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp
 
D

daycru

Member
Trickster said:
Damn this topic confused me. I remember closing guantanamo was suck a big issue in obama's election running. I actually thought it had been closed (I'm not american, cut me some slack please). The fuck is he doing?
Click to expand...
Politician in say one thing, do another shocker.
 
jchap

jchap

Member
Where does it say the government can fully restrict access to council? The only restrictions are on the frequency of visitation and on the handling of classified information.
 
Rentahamster

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
pigeon said:
Or here's a third possibility: Obama already signed an executive order to close Gitmo, and was blocked by Congress on multiple occasions from carrying it out. The funny thing about this possibility is that it made the news, yet somehow, mysteriously, you forgot it happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp
Click to expand...

That falls under "could not fulfill".

His intentions of closure, if sincerely held, would also be at odds with current administration actions.
 
7

789shadow

Banned
jchap said:
Where does it say the government can fully restrict access to council? The only restrictions are on the frequency of visitation and on the handling of classified information.
Click to expand...
Well, if you classify them as some bullshit term like "Enemy combatants", you can pretty much make up whatever the fuck you please.
 
G

Gaborn

Member
jchap said:
Where does it say the government can fully restrict access to council? The only restrictions are on the frequency of visitation and on the handling of classified information.
Click to expand...

Under the proposed changes, the Navy base commander at Guantanamo would have sole veto power over attorney access, as well as access to classified material, including information provided directly by the detainees from interrogations.
Click to expand...

Where does it say the Navy base commander would be REQUIRED to grant access to a lawyer? If it doesn't (and it doesn't) there would be no guarantee they would ever see a lawyer again under these rule changes.
 
W

WeAreStarStuff

Member
commedieu said:
And what do you get out of people giving bush shit? Your "GOTCHA!" moment? Politics are mainly bullshit, and everyone lies. Instead of actually fighting for the process to work in favor of the civilian population, too many of you are arguing over who is right about some meaningless comment made by a politician, to prove that he lies just as much as the next guy. While you lose rights all along the way. Keep arguing about it, keep having deep divided party lines. Its worked smashingly well for the population thus far.

Obama lost the little respect I had left for the office. You can't treat human beings this way, and once we do, theres nothing stopping them from doing it to the rest of us. Some of them were just walking while arab. Now they are held indefinitely...? We spend so much, and waste so much life on protecting us from people whose latest great weapon off mass destruction was an underwear bomb. So far, domestic terrorism is far more alarming than anything these guys have managed to pull off in the past 10 years. But people actually believe that this is the right course for human beings, as they are so dangerous to our way of life.
Click to expand...

This person gets it.
 
jchap

jchap

Member
Gaborn said:
Where does it say the Navy base commander would be REQUIRED to grant access to a lawyer? If it doesn't (and it doesn't) there would be no guarantee they would ever see a lawyer again under these rule changes.
Click to expand...

The administration has argued it does not seek to restrict lawyers who have an active legal appeal, but that the rights of detainees shrink once they have filed their first habeas challenge
Click to expand...

I read it as the restrictions apply after the first appeal
 
D

Dead Man

Member
jchap said:
Obama wanted to shut this place down. It was a huge campaign promise. The fact that even he can not rationalize that decision says something about the types of people who are being held there. Some of these people can not be released and should not be given complete access to civilian legal representation as harsh as that sounds.
Click to expand...

There is no possible grounds for denying access to counsel. None.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
News flash: Obama is basically a conservative.

I can't really defend this. There are a few things he's done that I can't defend, and there are other things that I can only defend, because... well... the American political system makes it such that the other side would just do worse. So, yeah, shit like this happens...
 
G

GillianSeed79

Member
So let me get this straight, not only are we denying them habeas rights, we are now denying them access to discovery if the evidence is classified? How can you challenge your detention if you can't even get access to discovery?

Forget military tribunals, FFS just give them access to the courts. I just can't get over the fact that two administrations basically are saying they have no faith in our justice system. I view habeas as a fundamental, universal right. The whole purpose behind it was to prevent monarchs from throwing people in the dungeon indefinitely without good cause. The only time habeas was suspended was during the civil war.

Screw the not in my backyard people too. If the truly guilty people deserve it, lock them up in supermax in the states once their legal rights are exhausted. For the low level people or just random people that we put in Gitmo let them challenge their detention or have them serve a lawful sentence.

I can't believe we are so scared of these people we have to keep them imprisoned on an island and deny them basic legal rights.
We have a ton of crazy evil people in prison here. Last I checked Charles Manson hasn't killed anybody in a long time. Are we really going to just keep some of these people like random arab dude who once sold a falafel to Osama in cages until they eventually die?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Apple reaches $95M settlement in Siri eavesdropping class action
15
1K
winjer replied
  • Locked
[TNYT] Brazil Blocks X After Musk Ignores Court Orders
Social News Community 2
69
5K
ManaByte replied
  • Locked
Time: Person of the Year! (not doing Politics: HARD MODE)
40
1K
SJRB replied
  • Locked
Elon Musk vs Brazil’s Federal Supreme Court
Social Opinion News
12
3K
AJUMP23 replied
The FTC’s noncompete agreements ban is blocked
News
1
833
GHG replied
Top Bottom