Legal News

Judges of the Court of Appeals Question Need for Gitmo Genital Searches
Download PDF
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia grilled the Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers this week on the need for genital searches of Guantanamo detainees. Judge Thomas Griffith commented on genital searches as “rather provocative and offensive.”

Edward Himmelfarb, representing the Department of Justice tried to convince the judges that contraband had been discovered in June at the base during the time the genital searches were made. However, under intense grilling by the court, he broke down and admitted that the discovery of the contraband was not related to the genital searches; though it didn’t prevent him from trying to mix up the two.

  
What
Where


In July, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth had ordered the government to stop the genital searches conducted for prisoners who wanted to access lawyers. Many prisoners found such touching to be offensive to their religious and cultural beliefs and chose to forego their meeting with lawyers than be exposed to the trauma.

Lamberth had concluded that the motivation for the genital searches of prisoners conducted by the government was not to enhance security, as the government claimed, but to discourage detainees from meeting lawyers. The genital searches were creating a situation where many detainees had to choose between foregoing their faith and foregoing legal help. But the decision to stop genital searches at Guantanamo was put on a stay while the case went before the appeals court.

The DOJ argued that Lamberth did not have sufficient jurisdiction to hear the case as it involved conditions of confinement and not questions of access to counsel. The government also argued that as a U.S. District Court Judge, Lambert erred in questioning the motives of Guantanamo commanders. In its court filing, the Department of Justice clearly observed, “characterization of the security rationale as a pretext was essentially an unsupported accusation that Colonel Bogdan lied under oath.”

Get JD Journal in Your Mail

Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!




While the arguments continue, the appeals court has already made it clear that the government has a special obligation to preserve detainee’s access to counsel.





 

RELEVANT JOBS

Associate - Education Law

USA-PA-Philadelphia

Education/School Law Attorney  Boutique firm located in Center City, Philadelphia, is seekin...

Apply now

Associate, NonProfit Corporation and Business Enterprise Practice Group

USA-PA-Philadelphia

Nonprofits and Business Enterprises Associate Job Description Sand & Saidel, P.C. is looking for ...

Apply now

Litigation Attorney

USA-CA-Los Angeles

Excellent opportunity for a full-time, experienced litigation attorney (minimum 5 years) to join our...

Apply now

ADA Compliance Officer

USA-CA-Los Angeles

The Personnel Commission of the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) is currently recruiti...

Apply now

BCG FEATURED JOB

Locations:

Keyword:



Search Now

Litigation Associate Attorney

USA-LA-New Orleans

New Orleans office of a BCG Attorney Search Top Ranked Law Firm seeks associate attorney with 1-2 ye...

Apply Now

Litigation Attorney

USA-IL-Chicago

Chicago office of our client seeks attorney with 4-10 years of litigation experience. The candidate ...

Apply Now

Litigation Associate Attorney

USA-NV-Las Vegas

Las Vegas office of our client seeks litigation associate attorney with preferably 3+ years of exper...

Apply Now

Most Popular

SEARCH IN ARCHIVE

To Top