April 24th, 2009
03:30 PM ET
9 years ago

Court again rejects suit over alleged mistreatment at Gitmo

The high court has said the roughly 240 men held at Guantanamo are entitled to some rights under the U.S. Constitution.

The high court has said the roughly 240 men held at Guantanamo are entitled to some rights under the U.S. Constitution.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - A lawsuit filed against the U.S. government by four British men formerly held at the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was dismissed again Friday by a federal appeals court.

The three-judge panel agreed with assertions made by both the Bush and Obama administration that the men were not entitled to relief in federal courts because the prisoners were foreigners held outside the United States.

The men claim they were physically abused, tortured and denied their religious freedom rights.

At issue is what rights non-citizens have to contest in U.S. courts their treatment by the U.S. military during a time of war.

The Supreme Court had ordered the appeals court to reconsider its decision last year denying the British prisoners' claims. The high court has said the roughly 240 men held at Guantanamo are entitled to some rights under the U.S. Constitution.

But in their 11-page ruling, the three appeals court judges reiterated their view that U.S. officials could not be held responsible for any mistreatment because "there was no authority for - and ample authority against - plaintiffs' asserted rights at the time of the alleged misconduct."

The four British Muslim prisoners claim they were held and interrogated "under appalling conditions" in Afghanistan and at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo. They claim beatings, painful shackling and humiliating treatment over their Muslim faith, such as interrupted prayers and being forced to shave their beards.

They sued Pentagon officials and officers under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but their claims have been repeatedly rejected. The men said the Pentagon officials - including former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - authorized and carried out the mistreatment. The military denies the claims.

The appeals court said the U.S. officials should not be held responsible for lawsuits over their conduct, in part because the four prisoners have since been released from custody. "We do not require government employees to anticipate future developments in constitutional law," said the three judges, all of whom were named to the bench by Republican presidents.

"At the time of their detention, neither the Supreme Court nor this court had ever held that aliens captured on foreign soil and detained beyond sovereign U.S. territory had any constitutional rights," the court said.

The Obama administration filed a brief in the case supporting the Pentagon officials, saying that holding such officials liable for developments in the future could affect their ability to make appropriate policy decisions.

The attorneys for Shaqif Rasul, one of the four former prisoners, had successfully argued an earlier, separate case that reached the Supreme Court in 2004, the year Rasul was freed and returned to England.

In that case, the justices said the detainees had a basic right to challenge their confinement in federal court.

"The courts of the United States have traditionally been open to nonresident aliens," the high court said in its 6-3 ruling. That right was reaffirmed in a ruling last June involving another Guantanamo prisoner, Bosnian Lakhdar Boumediene.

Federal courts in Washington have since been flooded by a variety of appeals from current and former Guantanamo prisoners.

The case ruled on Friday is Rasul v. Myers (06-5209).

Filed under: Guantanamo Bay
soundoff (2 Responses)
  1. Baze

    Sorry b'out that

    April 24, 2009 04:45 pm at 4:45 pm |
  2. Erik in Real Pennsylvania

    Time of war?!?! America is not at war. Only Congress is authorized to declare war. Our last declaration of war was in 1942, against Bulgaria during World War II. The War Powers Act of 1973 did not overturn the United States Constitution, which in Article 1, Section 8 clearly states Congress alone has the power to declare war. And niether the legislative nor the executive branch can declare war on a concept, such as 'drugs" or "terror." For example, what we have experienced is a military invasion and occupation of a Iraq by the United States. No declaration of war means no specific adversaries, no specific goals, no plan for peace when conflict is resolved. Justify this military action as you wish, or don't, but we are not lawfully at war with anyone right now according to the "operating manual" of our nation. The Constitution is not subject to executive convenience.

    April 24, 2009 04:50 pm at 4:50 pm |