No-Hearing Hearings
| Company type | Investigative report |
|---|---|
| Industry | Legal research, Human rights |
| Founded | October 17, 2006 |
| Founder | Mark P. Denbeaux, Joshua Denbeaux |
| Headquarters | Newark , United States |
| Products | Report on Combatant Status Review Tribunals at Guantanamo Bay |
| Parent | Center for Policy and Research, Seton Hall University School of Law |
No-Hearing Hearings (2006) is an investigative report conducted by Professor Mark P. Denbeaux of the Center for Policy and Research at Seton Hall University School of Law, his son Joshua Denbeaux, along with research associates. Published on October 17, 2006, this work is part of a broader series scrutinizing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, its detainees, and related government procedures through analysis of Department of Defense records.
The report focuses on the Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs) held for 393 individuals detained at Guantánamo Bay during 2004 and 2005. It was the initial study to reveal that the OARDEC organized multiple tribunals for certain detainees when initial panels determined they should not be designated as enemy combatants. Although the majority of subsequent hearings upheld enemy combatant status, some tribunals expressed dissenting opinions.
The Denbeaux family serves as legal representatives for two detainees at Guantánamo.
The study
Utilizing data obtained from attorneys representing 102 detainees and transcripts of tribunals released following a FOIA request by the Associated Press, this analysis explores detainee profiles alongside the methodologies employed by CSRTs to establish their status.
Combatant Status Review Tribunals
In response to Supreme Court decisions in Rasul v. Bush and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), which affirmed detainees' rights to habeas corpus, the Bush administration initiated CSRTs to assess detainee classifications. These tribunals were designed to adhere to Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention, mandating a competent tribunal's determination of combatant status when uncertainty exists.
The administration labeled individuals captured during the Afghanistan conflict as unlawful combatants, thereby excluding them from prisoner of war protections outlined in Article 2. Conducted by the United States Department of Defense between July 2004 and March 2005, CSRTs served as an alternative mechanism to federal habeas corpus petitions by evaluating whether detainees met criteria for enemy combatant designation.
Following the conclusion of these tribunals in 2006, Seton Hall’s Center for Policy and Research released No-Hearing Hearings, which assessed tribunal procedures and verdicts based on Department of Defense information accessible publicly and through FOIA requests, though some data was incomplete.
Findings in the 2006 report
The No-Hearing Hearings report identified several critical issues:[1][2]
- No government witnesses appeared at any tribunal.
- Detainees were barred from reviewing classified evidence presented against them.
- Requests to summon defense witnesses who were not detained at Guantanamo were declined.
- In 74% of cases, petitions to call detained witnesses were denied.
- Detainees failed to present evidence in 91% of hearings.
- In three instances, panels determined detainees were "no longer enemy combatants," but new tribunals were convened that overturned these determinations.
Mark Denbeaux characterized these proceedings as "shams," comparing them to show trials.[2]
Comment
Concerning the Military Commissions Act of 2006, legal analyst Andrew Cohen of the Washington Post remarked:
If detainee trials end up mirroring the superficial and predetermined nature of the Status Review Tribunals, it is deeply troubling that federal courts might be barred from exercising oversight. Such a flawed trial process would justify judicial removal.[3]
In the Village Voice, Nat Hentoff contended that the Supreme Court's rulings in 'Rasul v. Bush' and 'Hamdan v. Rumsfeld'—which limited due process—effectively implicate U.S. officials in violations amounting to war crimes.[4]
Co-author Joshua Denbeaux highlighted: "Official government records demonstrate that assertions labeling detainees as the 'worst of the worst' were a misleading public relations strategy... We urge Congress to revise the Military Commissions Act to reinstate federal court authority," thereby allowing detainees to legally contest their detention and sentencing.[4]
See also
- Agamben, Giorgio, Italian philosopher focused on Homo sacer and states of emergency
- Black sites holding "enemy combatants" in legal uncertainty
- Combatant Status Review Tribunal
- Command responsibility
- Criticisms of the War on Terrorism
- Ex parte Quirin
- Extraordinary rendition
- Irregulars
- Jus ad bellum
- Jus in bello
- Military Commissions Act
- Third Geneva Convention
- Unitary Executive
- Unlawful combatant
- USA PATRIOT Act
- War on Terrorism
References
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedVillageVoice2006-12-08 - ↑ 2.0 2.1 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedMsNbc20061117 - ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedWaPo20061130 - ↑ 4.0 4.1 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedVillageVoice20061217