The Bush
Administration chose Guantanamo Bay as the place to imprison prisoners captured
in the War on Terror because it believed
that the prison was outside the jurisdiction of US courts. On January 11, 2002
the first prisoners arrived at Guantanamo Bay. Some of the prisoners who were
sent to Guantanamo were captured by Afghans and Pakistanis in exchange for a
5,000 dollar reward offered by the US government for al-Qaeda and Taliban
suspects. This meant that many completely innocent people came to be imprisoned
at Guantanamo.
The US
government leased
the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base from the newly independent country of Cuba in
1903, after the Spanish-American War. The agreement says that Cuba maintains “ultimate
sovereignty” but that the US has “jurisdiction and control” over the area. In
1934 Cuba and the United States signed a treaty saying that the lease would
remain in effect as long as, “the United States of America shall not abandon
the… naval station at Guantanamo.”
The Cuban
government was overthrown by the communist Cuban Revolution in 1959. One party
to the treaty ceased to exist. The new Cuban government asked that
the land be returned to Cuba. That is an ongoing
request. The bottom line is that the US has the bigger military and is keeping
the base.
The Bush
Administration argued that because the prisoners were held in a place that the
1903 lease says the US does not have sovereignty over, the prisoners were not
entitled to habeas corpus rights. Habeas
Corpus is the right of an individual to challenge the legality of their imprisonment.
The Guantanamo prisoners were denied the
right to a lawyer, the right to a trial, and the right to know the charges
against them (if there were any charges against them at all).
In 2004 the
Supreme Court ruled in Rasul v Bush
that, “the federal courts have jurisdiction to determine the legality of the
Executive’s potentially indefinite detention of individuals who claim to be
totally innocent of wrongdoing.” The Court’s opinion was written by Justice
Paul Stevens and referenced the 1215 Magna Carta. The Court ruled that the
prisoners had a right to Habeas Corpus under statutory law.
In response
to this ruling, Congress changed the law to remove the prisoners’ right to
Habeas Corpus. In 2006 Congress passed the Military Commissions Act which said,
“No court justice or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an
application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien
detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to
have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.”
President Bush signed the legislation. In 2008 the Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene
v Bush that the prisoners at Guantanamo had a constitutional right to
Habeas Corpus.
Since July
2010 the DC Appeals Court made a series of rulings that required federal judges
hearing Guantanamo cases to grant a special presumption of accuracy to US
intelligence reports being used to justify the continued detention of
Guantanamo prisoners. In June 2012 the Supreme Court declined
to consider several appeals by prisoners at Guantanamo who argued they were not
being granted a “meaningful opportunity” to challenge the legality of their
imprisonment. The Supreme Court’s decision to not hear these cases rendered its
earlier rulings that the prisoners had the right to Habeas Corpus all but
meaningless.
*************************************************************************
Virtually
Unrelated Tangent: The Magna
Carta says that, “No freeman shall be…imprisoned…except by the lawful
judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” Originally “freeman” meant
barons, church officials, and merchants, who were only about 25 percent of the
population. However, the provision eventually came to apply to all English. The
phrase “lawful judgment of his peers” did not refer to a jury trial; it instead
referred to a trial by combat, a duel.