Supreme Court ruling on Guantánamo: What does it mean?

Activists and legal organizations that defend civil rights celebrated a victory June 12. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the habeas rights of the remaining 270 detainees at the U.S. military base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

In Boumediene v. Bush, a case brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and co-counsel, the court ruled 5-4 that the prisoners have the right to appear in a U.S. civilian court and challenge their detention.

The court majority rejected the government’s argument that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t apply at Guantánamo because it is not on U.S. territory. They noted that the U.S. “exercises exclusive jurisdiction and control over Guantánamo, with no other country’s law applying.” Guantánamo is, of course, Cuban territory illegally occupied by the Pentagon.

The ruling also confirms the Marxist view that even a reactionary court can be forced to make a positive ruling through mass pressure—in this case, because the heroic liberation struggle of the Iraqi people, international disgust with Bush’s brutality, and the spiraling economic crisis at home have put U.S. imperialism on the defensive.

The men held at Guantánamo, whom the Bush administration terms “enemy combatants,” were swept up by U.S. military forces in Afghanistan and other countries in the early days of the so-called war on terror. Some have been held for over six years in deplorable conditions. All have been subject to horrendously racist treatment. Many have been tortured.

Most were never charged with any crime. In fact, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, spoke the “wrong” language, had the “wrong” beliefs and the “wrong” appearance or skin-tone in the eyes of the U.S. military.

Others, who may have been active combatants fighting the unlawful U.S. invasion of Afghanistan or interventions into other Middle Eastern, South Asian or African countries, have not been accorded their rights under international law as prisoners of war.

“Today, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the part of the Military Commissions Act that attempted to block the federal courts from hearing the claims of our clients was unconstitutional,” states a legal analysis released by CCR. Founded by radical attorneys in 1966 to defend the Civil Rights movement, CCR began the legal battle on behalf of the Guantánamo detainees in early 2002. Today the organization coordinates a team of more than 500 pro bono attorneys who represent the detainees.

President George W. Bush, in Rome when the ruling came down, said, “We’ll abide by the court’s decision.” Nevertheless, he threatened that “new legislation may now be needed to keep the American people safe.” (Associated Press, June 12)

This was the tactic pursued by Bush and Congress after two earlier Supreme Court decisions challenged the detentions in 2004 and 2006. Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTS) and the Military Commissions Act have prevented the detainees from having their day in court.

Gitmo = torture

During the drawn-out battle, Guantá­namo has become synonymous with torture and abuse. A Red Cross report leaked to the New York Times in 2004 described “humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes, use of forced positions.”

Explaining the torture inflicted on CCR client Mohammad al-Qahtani, attorney Gita Gutierrez reported he endured “48 days of severe sleep deprivation and 20-hour interrogations, forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, physical force, prolonged stress positions and prolonged sensory over-stimulation, and threats with military dogs.”

H. Candace Gorman, a Chicago attorney, described the treatment of her client, Abdul Hamid Al-Ghizzawi: “His American jailers spared Al-Ghizzawi the very worst of the worst in the long list of torture techniques now in use. He was not murdered or waterboarded. He did not have a razor blade taken to his penis, nor was he hung from the ceiling by his arms. ...

“In American custody, Al-Ghizzawi was ‘only’ beaten with chains; bound to chairs in excruciating positions for endless hours; threatened with death and with rape; stripped and subjected to body-cavity searches by nonmedical personnel while men—and women—laughed and took pictures.

“Among many other brutalities and indignities, Al-Ghizzawi was also posed naked with other prisoners; terrorized with dogs; forced to kneel on stones in the searing heat; left to stand or crouch for extended periods; deprived of sleep; subjected to extreme cold without clothes or covering; denied medical attention; and kept in isolation for years.” (In These Times, May 27)

Five men are known to have committed suicide so far. Many other attempts have been reported to visiting attorneys. The Pentagon calls this “asymmetrical warfare.”

What the ruling does— and doesn’t do

The revolutionary, national liberation and working-class movements in the U.S. and worldwide should not overrate the importance of this ruling. It is a significant, but limited, legal victory.

The court’s Boumediene ruling reaffirms habeas corpus—the right of incarcerated people to stand before a judge and confront the charges presented against them. Habeas was inscribed in the Magna Carta of 1215, and is considered a foundation stone of bourgeois law.

However, Boumediene does not guarantee the release of anyone held at Guantánamo.

It does not challenge the Bush assertion of “enemy combatants” who are neither civilians nor prisoners of war. It simply states that the government must provide some evidence to justify the detentions.

By ruling that habeas applies to detainees held outside U.S. territory, it opens the door to similar cases to demand those rights for “enemy combatants” held by U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.

However, it does nothing to expose or prevent the continued existence of CIA “black sites,” “ghost detention” and “extraordinary rendition” in third countries.

In an upcoming report, CCR’s British counterpart, Reprieve, documents the ongoing use of 17 U.S. warships as floating prisons for “war on terror” detainees—including some recently “disappeared” from the Horn of Africa. The British Guardian newspaper broke the news in early June. CCR attorney Shayana Kadidal labeled these “ghost ships.”

It does not resolve the dilemma of many detainees who were already cleared for release by the Pentagon, but are unable to return to their home countries for fear of torture.

It does not put a stop to the Military Commissions established in 2006, which have been roundly condemned as coercive and rigged by legal experts and even by U.S. military defense attorneys.

It does not quash the Military Commission trial already underway against alleged 9/11 conspirators, nor does it prevent other detainees from being charged in the future.

The new repressive powers put into common practice by the Bush regime are still in force—openly or covertly—even as new U.S. terror campaigns are contemplated in Iran, Colombia, Sudan and Venezuela and while the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq—where there are an estimated 27,000 prisoners in U.S. custody—continue unabated.

Already, the brain trusts of capitalism are spinning plans to curb the most obvious excesses of Bush, Cheney & Co. while retaining the reactionary essence of their policies. These efforts will continue throughout the remainder of Bush’s term and likely into the next, no matter who wins the presidency in November.

For example, a June 13 Washington Post op-ed by Benjamin Wittes of the Brookings Institute urged Congress to enact a more precise system of detention “open enough to the public to know how scary some detainees really are” while giving a more credible gloss to the war on terror.

An important front in this struggle will be challenging Washington’s use of “terrorist” designations to outlaw and demonize those movements opposed to U.S. aggression worldwide and those who support them here at home.