On Wednesday a federal court in Washington, D.C., heard the
first major challenge to the Trump administration’s policy on Guantánamo
Bay — a case arguing against the ongoing detention of eight of the 40
Muslim men still left at the island prison. The judge’s decision in the
case could impact any future attempt to bring detainees to the detention
center and torture site, and become a judgment on the United States’s
endless war on terror.
Twenty-six prisoners at Guantánamo remain detained without charge or
trial, including the eight men represented in court Wednesday, who have
been at Guantánamo between 10 and 16 years. Two of them have been
cleared for release by a government review panel. Lawyers from the
Center for Constitutional Rights, along with other attorneys, are
challenging the prisoners’ detention both as a violation of due process
and also under the laws of war as dictated by the authorization for the
use of military force, or AUMF.
Passed by Congress in 2001, the AUMF granted the executive branch
license to “use all necessary and appropriate force” against individuals
or groups responsible for the 9/11 attacks or those who helped them.
Critics say the law is now being stretched beyond recognition to
legalize military action around the globe, including against groups that
did not exist in 2001.
While the government originally used the broad powers granted by the
AUMF to justify the detention of their clients, CCR attorneys argued
that this authority has since “unraveled.” Under the AUMF, limited
detention was justified for the narrow purpose of preventing the return
of the detainees to the battlefield. Calling today’s war on terror an
“amorphous, interminable morass” and a “conflict disconnected from
reality,” CCR urged the court to recognize the vastly different
landscape from when the AUMF was passed by Congress.
Click here for the full article.
Source: The Intercept_
No comments:
Post a Comment