From the Los Angeles Times
Detainee in Afghanistan wins ruling
A federal judge in the U.S. upholds the right
of a Yemeni man held as an enemy combatant to seek his freedom.
By Henry Weinstein
Times Staff Writer
July 19, 2007
A federal judge in Washington on Wednesday upheld the right of a Yemeni
man held as an enemy combatant at a U.S. military prison in Afghanistan
to seek his freedom.
The
ruling is the first issued in a case filed on behalf of a foreign
detainee held by the U.S. outside the country or the Guantanamo Bay
Naval Station. It comes less than a month after the Supreme Court said
it would again consider the rights of detainees at Guantanamo in the
fall.
U.S. District Judge John D. Bates cited the high court's June action as
a key reason for his decision.
Wednesday's
ruling stems from a case filed in September on behalf of Fadi Al
Maqaleh, who is being held at the military prison in Bagram,
Afghanistan. The International Justice Network, a legal advocacy group,
filed a habeas corpus petition seeking Maqaleh's release, alleging that
he had been illegally taken into custody by the U.S. and held without
charges for more than five years.
Bates, appointed to the court
by President Bush, said it was possible that when the Supreme Court
considered the rights of detainees in the fall, it "could issue a
broader decision in favor of the detainees, one whose reasoning applies
not just to Guantanamo, but to Bagram and other locations as well."
He
also acknowledged that the high court could go the other way. Whatever
the justices decide, the ruling is likely to affect the outcome of
Maqaleh's case and thus it should not be dismissed before the Supreme
Court weighs in, Bates said.
Attorney Tina M. Foster said she
filed the case after meeting Maqaleh's father, Ahmad Al Maqaleh, while
she was in Yemen doing research for detainees at Guantanamo. "A lot of
families came to me saying there were worse problems at Bagram than at
Guantanamo," Foster said, referring to the military base about 40 miles
north of Kabul where about 650 detainees are being held.
She
said Maqaleh's family told her that they had not seen their son in
nearly five years and that they only learned that he was being held at
Bagram when they got a letter from him, via the International Committee
of the Red Cross, "in or about 2003."
Foster said she believed that Maqaleh, who is now about 25, had never
been part of forces hostile to the United States.
She
asked Judge Bates to issue a writ of habeas corpus compelling the
government to either release Maqaleh or establish in court a legal
basis for detaining him.
"Both military personnel and former
detainees have described the prison conditions at Bagram to be far
worse than those at Guantanamo," Foster said. Among other sources, she
quoted a Defense Department official who had toured the facility and a
report by Human Rights Watch, which said "the detention system in
Afghanistan, unlike the system in Iraq, is not operated even nominally
in compliance with the Geneva conventions."
She also quoted
articles from several publications in which former detainees told
journalists of abusive interrogation methods and harsh conditions at
Bagram, including one man who described his cell as a cage like ones he
had seen for keeping animals in the Karachi, Pakistan, zoo.
Justice
Department attorney Jean Lin countered that Judge Bates had no
jurisdiction to hear the case, even if Foster's allegations were true.
She cited a February 2007 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in
Washington in Boumediene vs. Bush, holding that federal courts have no
jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions filed by aliens abroad and
detained as enemy combatants in a military base outside sovereign U.S.
territory.
The D.C. Circuit said the Military Commissions Act
of 2006, which precludes claims based on the Geneva Convention, left no
other ruling possible. Lin also said that a 1950 Supreme Court decision
held that aliens detained abroad by the United States had no
constitutional rights.
According to Lin's brief, Maqaleh was
captured in Zabul, Afghanistan, though it did not say when. The brief
states that Maqaleh was "determined to be an enemy combatant both at
the time of the capture and in subsequent reviews," with the most
recent being on March 1.
--
Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times