WASHINGTON (ABP) — Religious groups praised the June 28 U.S. Supreme Court rulings that foreign detainees and “enemy combatants” must be given a “meaningful opportunity” to defend themselves in American courts.
Both the National Council of Churches and the Council on American-Islamic Relations applauded the decisions, saying detention of foreigners at U.S.-controlled Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba and the detainment of a U.S. citizen in Charleston, S.C., are breaches of constitutionality.
“The ability to be represented by an attorney and to present evidence in open court is the hallmark of a just society and must be preserved, even in times of crisis,” the Islamic group said in a statement.
The rulings were widely seen as a defeat for President Bush's anti-terror strategy.
The two decisions, Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld and Rasul vs. Bush, established the right of a hearing to a citizen or alien who falls under the scope of the congressional resolution authorizing the president to “use all necessary and appropriate force” against those he considers threats to national security.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion for the 6-3 decision in the Rasul case, saying American courts have “jurisdiction to hear petitioners' habeas corpus challenges” even though they are not U.S. citizens.
The NCC filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the due-process rights of these Kuwaiti and Australian detainees. “At issue here is not the guilt or innocence of these terrorism suspects, but rather their right under the U.S. Constitution and international law to challenge the legality of their detention,” Robert Edgar, NCC general secretary, said.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion for the 8-1 decision in the Hamdi case, noting that since Hamdi is a U.S. citizen, “due process demands [he] be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decision-maker.”
Officials of the Council on American-Islamic Relations released a statement Monday acknowledging their concurrence with the decisions. “Today's rulings are a victory for due process and a confirmation that the executive branch of government does have limitations on how it can sidestep constitutional civil-liberties guarantees,” it read.
-30-