Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Terror suspects' status unresolved

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court prolonged the legal limbo of hundreds of terror suspects in a U.S. military prison in Cuba, refusing on Tuesday to consider whether the government's plan for military trials unfairly denies them basic legal rights.

Only a handful of the 550 detainees from about 40 countries have been charged with war crimes. More are expected once courts sort out how they may be tried.

The legal uncertainty surrounding the men, many of whom were captured during the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan in 2001, has prompted international criticism and spawned multiple court fights.

The Supreme Court had been asked to use an appeal by Osama bin Laden's former driver to decide whether the Bush administration is trying to shortcut defendants' rights by holding a type of military trial last used during World War II.

A federal judge ruled last fall that Salim Ahmed Hamdan and others put on trial at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base should be allowed to confront witnesses and see evidence against them, which are standard under military justice rules but are not guaranteed to detainees.

The Supreme Court rejected the case Tuesday, which was not surprising because an appeals court also is considering the issue and has scheduled arguments March 8.

It was a minor victory for the government, which was ordered by the Supreme Court last year to give detainees in the United States and Cuba more legal rights.

Since those landmark decisions, lawsuits have been filed in Washington on behalf of dozens of detainees claiming they are being wrongly held. Some of those cases eventually will make it to the Supreme Court. The government has also been sued for millions of dollars in damages by inmates claiming mistreatment.

Received an emergency appeal from an atheist seeking to bar the saying of a prayer at President Bush's inauguration. Two lower courts have already rejected the request by Michael Newdow, who also wants Chief Justice William Rehnquist to recuse himself from the case because he is scheduled to swear in Bush.

Heard arguments on whether a Pennsylvania jury unfairly sentenced Ronald Rompilla to death, in a case expected to clarify death penalty standards for attorney conduct and jury instructions.

Declined to consider whether Wisconsin police may take a blood test from a suspected drunken driver without a warrant.

[Last modified January 19, 2005, 00:33:17]