TORONTO - A Canadian and others held on terrorism charges for almost five years in Guantanamo Bay lost a bid to challenge their detention Monday in a U.S. Supreme Court decision that Omar Khadr's lawyer blasted as a disgrace.
The decision, stemming from two cases involving an Algerian and a Kuwaiti, will ensure that Khadr and his fellow detainees languish in prison while Washington continues to flout the most basic of principles of justice, said Dennis Edney.
"It's disgraceful,'' Edney, one of Khadr's Canadian lawyers, said in an interview from Edmonton.
"The court should comply with the rule of law and come in line with various other legal jurisdictions and international bodies.''
Roughly 375 Guantanamo detainees were seized as potential terrorists following the 9-11 attacks. Only 10 have been charged with a crime.
Among them is Khadr, a Canadian citizen accused of killing a U.S. medic in Afghanistan in 2002 when he was 15. Khadr is expected to soon face a trial by military commission.
In handing the Bush administration a legal victory in its fight against terrorism, a split U.S. Supreme Court decided Monday the detainees have no right to what is known as a habeas corpus review.
Such a review, a basic tenet of centuries-old human-rights principles and the U.S. Constitution, allows prisoners to challenge the lawfulness of their detention in a civilian court.
Despite earlier rulings in their favour, none of the detainees has had such a hearing because the administration has moved aggressively to limit the legal rights of prisoners it has labelled as enemy combatants.
Last year, Washington specifically stripped federal courts of their right to hear such challenges and lower courts have upheld that law.
"It's a lawless country with lawless rules,'' said a frustrated Edney, who accused the U.S. Supreme Court of kowtowing to President George W. Bush.
"It doesn't take any great common sense to recognize that this is a court that's given undue deference to the commander-in-chief. It's overdone.''
Three of the court's justices voted to hear the appeals, with two saying the case should be fast-tracked.
"The questions presented are significant ones warranting our review,'' Justice Stephen Breyer wrote. "I believe these questions deserve this court's immediate attention.''
While the White House expressed satisfaction with the decision, Democrat Sen. Chris Dodd, in line with several former military officers, diplomats, federal judges and human rights-groups, called it "misguided.''
The decision highlights the urgency for congressional action, said Dodd, adding the detainees should have their basic rights restored in line with the Geneva Conventions.
Washington lawyer Tom Wilner, who represents a group of 39 of the detainees on the U.S. naval base in Cuba, called the decision a "perfect example'' of justice delayed being justice denied.
"All these people ever wanted was a fair hearing,'' Wilner said.
In arguing against a review, U.S. government lawyers said a law passed in 2004 authorized military hearings to assess whether the prisoners are being properly detained as enemy combatants.
Because those decisions can be appealed in a limited fashion in a process that could take years, two of the Supreme Court justices rejected the review request on procedural grounds.
Nate Whitling, another of Khadr's Canadian lawyers, said the ruling affirms Guantanamo's status as a "legal black hole.''
