NEWS AMERICAS US supreme court reviews Guantanamo Lawyers argued the government has an obligation
to provide prisoners with a fair trial [AFP]
The US supreme court is reviewing the legal status of prisoners held in the Guantanamo Bay detention centre in Cuba for the third time in three years. Lawyers argued before the court on Wednesday that Guantanamo inmates should have the right to have the legality of their detention reviewed by US courts. The Bush administration argues that the base is outside the country, so rights under the US constitution do not apply. More than 750 people have been held there since January 2002. Just three prisoners have been formally charged, and only one has been convicted, as a result of a plea bargain. David Hicks, an Australian citizen, who admitted to training with al-Qaeda, was deported to Australia to serve a nine-month prison sentence. Almost all of the 305 prisoners at Guantanamo have been confined for years without charges and many have complained of abuse. About 470 other prisoners have been released over the years, and the United States said it intends to try 60 to 80 of those still in detention. 'Fair hearing' The supreme court has already heard two cases about prisoners' rights and ruled in favour of the inmates. But the White House and congress circumvented its decisions by adopting new measures, including a 2006 law aimed at keeping such cases out of court. Seth Waxman, a lawyer representing 37 detainees, told the supreme court on Wednesday that "if our law doesn't apply, this is a law-free zone", referring to the prison at the US naval base on Cuba . He argued that the US congress wrongly stripped the prisoners in 2006 of their right to challenge an illegal detention. Centuries of US and English legal tradition were examined in the court's oral arguments. Tom Wilner, also a lawyer for the detainees, said: "The question is whether the United States government escapes any obligations under the constitution or law by holding foreigners outside of the United States, or whether they have some obligation to give them a fair hearing." The case is being watched by governments and activists around the world, who say George Bush, the US president, has overreached his powers and committed human rights abuses in his so-called "war on terrorism", launched after the attacks of September 11, 2001. Detentions 'lawful' The Bush administration contends the detentions are lawful, humane and necessary for a new-style war. Paul Clement, justice department solicitor general, arguing the administration's case, said the prisoners have more rights now than under original US habeas corpus law in 1789. He said: "This is a remarkable liberalisation." Gitanjali Gutierrez of the Centre for Constitutional Rights, said: "The case is a question of executive power, and how much power the courts and congress are going to give the president to hold whoever he wants, wherever he wants, whenever he wants." The judges are expected to hand down their decision in a few months. In Guantanamo on Wednesday, court proceedings at the special military tribunal started against the man whose case prompted the legislation passed in 2006. Salim Ahmad Hamdan is accused of being a member of al-Qaeda and a driver for Osama bin Laden. Source: Al Jazeera and agencies
The United States Supreme Court 
The United States Supreme Court has heard a plea that terrorism suspects being held at the U.S.  base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, should be given the opportunity to challenge their detention in American courts.

Demonstrators outside the court chanted and waved signs calling on the nine high court justices to grant the detainees habeus corpus, the age-old legal principle that allows prisoners to challenge their detention before a neutral judge. Inside the court,  and former   argued on behalf of a group of 37 detainees, part of the 305 prisoners now being held at Guantánamo.

"All have been confined at Guantánamo for almost six years," he said. "Yet, not one has ever had meaningful notice of the factual grounds of detention, or a fair opportunity to dispute those grounds before a neutral decision-maker."

But Waxman appeared to have little success in convincing some of the high court's more conservative justices that the Guantanamo detainees have a constitutional right to challenge their detentions in court. Among the skeptical was Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

"You are appealing to a common law right that somehow found its way into our Constitution without, as far as I can discern, a single case in which the writ right was ever issued to a non-citizen," he said.

Some of the other justices appeared more sympathetic, including Justice .

"Now it has been six years, and habeas is supposed to be speedy, and yet people have serious arguments anyway that they are being held for six years without even having those arguments heard," he said.

Since January 2002, more than 750 people have been held. Many of the 305 prisoners at Guantánamo have complained of abuse and almost all have been confined for years without charges. Around 470 other prisoners have been released over the years, and the U.S. said it intends to try 60 to 80 of those currently in detention. 

Since 2002, just three prisoners have been formally charged, and only one has been convicted, as part of a plea bargain. , an Australian citizen, who admitted to training with , was repatriated to Australia to serve a nine-month prison sentence.

The Supreme Court ruled against the Bush administration in two previous cases concerning the legal rights of the Guantánamo detainees. Congress got involved in the issue in 2006 and passed a law that was designed to keep detainee appeals out of the civilian court system and refer them instead to military commissions.
Aerial view of Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
But  and  groups say the alternative procedures set up by Congress and the Bush administration deprive the detainees of basic rights.

"At issue here that the Supreme Court decided was; 'Do we have a king in this country who is not bound by the rule of law and not bound by the Constitution? Or do we have a president that is subject to the Constitution?," said Vincent Warren, executive director of the .

Conservative legal scholars argue against U.S. constitutional protections for foreign terrorist suspects.

"If the courts are going to be in charge of the conduct of warfare, we are going to be a much less safe country," said Andrew C. McCarthy, who is with the .

A decision by the Supreme Court in the Guantánamo case is expected before the end of June.