US court examines 'enemy combatant' procedures
Court Alerts
[##_1L|1092388436.jpg|width="150" height="107" alt=""|_##]A US appeals court examined Tuesday the procedures of a military panel that determines whether a Guantanamo prison camp detainee should be branded an "enemy combatant." The three federal court judges in Washington, reviewing the matter for the first time, sought to determine how they should proceed in examining the Combatant Status Review Tribunal. The same court ruled in February that, as foreigners held outside US territory, the detainees could not challenge their indefinite detention without charge at the US naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The US Supreme Court refused to review the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
A 2005 law, however, allows the detainees to ask the appeals court to check whether the Combatant Status Review Tribunal, created by the Defense Department in 2004, had followed procedures.
During the review tribunals, handcuffed detainees appear without an attorney before three military judges.
Only one person, called a recorder, has access to all elements of a case and presents the documents and witnesses that he or she deems pertinent for the review.
The detainee, meanwhile, can request under certain conditions documents and witnesses, but under such limitations most requests have been rejected.
The government argues that the appeals court can only have access to minutes of the review board hearings and documents presented to the panel.
But detainee attorneys want the court to be able to determine whether the recorder indeed presented all relevant documents for a case and if the military judges were right to reject certain witnesses or documents requested by the detainee.
President George W. Bush's administration has argued that unlawful enemy combatants captured in the "war on terror" do not have the same rights as US criminals or prisoners of war, arguing the detainees are not associated with conventional armies.
Related listings
-
BetOnSports founder Kaplan pleads not guilty
Court Alerts 05/15/2007[##_1L|1096131895.jpg|width="120" height="118" alt=""|_##]The founder of the notorious online betting company BetOnSports, Gary Kaplan, pleaded not guilty yesterday to the charges brought against him. The Internet gambling executive pleaded "not guil...
-
Teen guilty in selling drugs at Joliet school
Court Alerts 05/15/2007A former Joliet Catholic Academy student pleaded guilty Monday to selling crack cocaine to undercover police officers in an investigation that netted 14 teens, including 8 pupils at the school.David M. Caiafa, 18, of the 500 block of Northfield Drive...
-
Long Island man pleads not guilty in hit-run death
Court Alerts 05/14/2007[##_1L|1345215839.jpg|width="120" height="88" alt=""|_##]A Long Island man pleaded not guilty on a charge in the hit-and-run death of an East Meadow woman, struck and killed as she waited in her driveway for her husband. Robert Fowler, 57, of Massape...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.