Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Today

Federal Court Rules Hamdi Cannot Meet With Lawyers

Aired July 12, 2002 - 12:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: This news just in to CNN: We're told that a federal appeals court has ruled -- or made a ruling, rather, on the suspected American-born Taliban fighter, Yaser Hamdi.

We are going to go live to our Bob Franken. He is live with Washington, D.C., with more.

What can you tell us, Bob?

BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, first of all, the appeals court has ruled in favor of the government, has ruled that Yaser Hamdi, at this particular point, cannot have a lawyer, but at this particular point is important.

Just a bit of a review: Yaser Hamdi was the young man who was born in Louisiana of Saudi parents. They moved back to Saudi Arabia. As a young adult, he was captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan, ended up at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, until his claims that he was born in Louisiana in the United States were verified.

Then, with considerable feeling that he might be a U.S. citizen, as a result, he was flown to Virginia, where he has stayed at the Norfolk Virginia Naval Air Station in the brig, incommunicado. The public defender in this district, Frank Dunham, went to court trying to represent him as a lawyer. A lower court in Norfolk said, yes, he could have a lawyer.

But then it went to the appeals court. And the arguments began. The appeals court had already said that the public defender was not necessarily the one who would have the right. Now they have ruled again he does not have the right to be a lawyer. But what was so significant about this case was the claim by the United States government that, U.S. citizen or not, Hamdi -- and, of course, there are others, like Jose Padilla and perhaps John Walker Lindh -- are somewhat different than other U.S. citizens, that it is the United States government that has the right to declare someone an unlawful enemy combatant.

And the government went on to say that it is the absolute right of the executive branch of government, without any judicial interference, to make that claim. Now, the appeals court judges, there were three of them in what is considered to be the most conservative appeals court in the United States. They did not go so far as to embrace that. They could have dismissed the case when they reversed it. But instead, they sent it back to the lower court. They said that dismissal would be premature. And they made sure they said that they were not ready yet to accept the absolute.

Let me read a few parts of this decision: "In dismissing, we ourselves would summarily be embracing a sweeping proposition that any citizen alleged to be an enemy combatant could be detained indefinitely, without charges or counsel, on the government's say-so." They are saying that they are not yet ready to make that decision.

However, they say they have to -- say that the federal courts have many strengths, they go on to say, but the conduct of combat operations has been left to others. They are not in fact supporting the government position that it has absolute right to determine who is an enemy combatant. But they are saying that, at least now, they have no reason to feel that this man should have a lawyer.

It's something that is going to be argued some more, Kyra. But it is, again, a decision where the 4th Circuit is walking a very careful line here, refusing to come up with the absolute decision on that very controversial contention made by the government.

PHILLIPS: So, Bob, when the government is trying to decide whether someone is an unlawful enemy combatant, what is the criteria? Is there a list? How do they make the decision right now?

FRANKEN: Well, they are making the decision, they are saying, based on the fact that these are people who are enemies of the United States who are planning to do harm of the United States. But the point that the government makes is, it must have, unfettered, the absolute right to make this point, that this must be an executive branch decision only and that the courts have no role in this.

PHILLIPS: Bob Franken live from D.C. -- thanks, Bob. We will continue to check in with you on this story.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com