JURIST Supported by the University of Pittsburgh
Serious law. Primary sources. Global perspective.

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Federal court denies transfer for Uighur Guantanamo detainees
Mike Rosen-Molina at 12:42 PM ET

[JURIST] A judge in the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] last week denied [opinion, PDF] a request made by six ethnic Uighur Guantanamo [JURIST news archive] detainees to be transferred to less restrictive facilities within the base. The petitioners argued that their solitary confinement in a higher security section of the base caused them mental suffering, but the court ruled that the detainees did not sufficiently demonstrate that they would suffer irreparable harm if they were not moved. Judge Ricardo Urbina ruled:

What is clear is that no court has ever ruled that detainees, designated as enemy combatants, have a right to challenge the conditions of their confinement pursuant to the constitutional writ of habeas corpus. Furthermore, courts are reluctant to second-guess day-to-day operations of domestic prison facilities, especially when doing so intrudes upon the military and national security affairs. This deference combined with the paucity of evidence of irreparable injury and the petitioners' failure to articulate a specific constitutional right and standard from which to analyze the facts of this case presses the court to deny the petitioners' motion for a TRO and a preliminary injunction.
Guantanamo Bay currently houses 17 other Uighur enemy combatants who have been cleared for transfer out of the facility.

In 2006, lawyers for several Chinese detainees still held at Guantanamo Bay filed a lawsuit [JURIST report] in US federal court seeking their release due to alleged flaws in the process by which they were deemed enemy combatants. The group of seven ethnic Uighurs were deemed enemy combatants by Guantanamo's Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs) [DOD materials], while five other Uighurs were cleared and subsequently released [JURIST report] from Guantanamo Bay. The new lawsuit alleged that the CSRTs relied on essentially the same evidence that was used to clear the five, and asserts that the detainees continued to be held as the result of a political agreement between China and the US.

Link |  | print | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | Facebook page

For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...


 Federal Judge declares DC gun law unconstitutional
3:20 PM ET, July 27

 European Court exposes illegal detention facilities linked to CIA's extraordinary rendition program in Poland
3:11 PM ET, July 27

 US appeals court sets date for oral arguments on same-sex marriage bans in Indiana and Wisconsin
12:04 PM ET, July 26

 click for more...

Get JURIST legal news delivered daily to your e-mail!


Unprecedented Notice of Warrantless Wiretapping in a Closed Case
Ramzi Kassem
CUNY School of Law


Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible, ad-free format.


Paper Chase welcomes comments, tips and URLs from readers. E-mail us at JURIST@jurist.org