Enemy combatant's lawyer in talks for release
From Carol Cratty and Bill Mears
CNN Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Lawyers for a U.S.-born man designated an enemy combatant and held in military detention for more than three years are negotiating with the government to allow him to be released and leave the country.
Yaser Esam Hamdi's attorneys and the government Wednesday filed a joint motion asking for a three-week stay of all legal proceedings while the discussions continue.
Hamdi was arrested on the battlefield in Afghanistan in November 2001 and has been in military custody since then. He first was transferred to the American-controlled Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but then was brought to the United States when officials confirmed his citizenship.
Hamdi had protested his detention and won a major Supreme Court victory in June.
Frank Dunham, a lawyer for Hamdi, told CNN, "Obviously I'd like the man released. I think they [the government] probably concluded some time ago they don't have to keep this man in custody."
The Pentagon announced last December that military investigators had finished their interrogation of Hamdi. No charges have been filed against him.
Dunham, a federal public defender, said the negotiations involve a proposal for Hamdi to leave the United States and return to his family in Saudi Arabia. Dunham stressed the negotiations could fall through, but the two sides are close enough that they felt it could be worthwhile to delay legal proceedings.
Government: No timetable
The Justice Department confirmed the ongoing discussions. "They're negotiating, they're beginning to iron out the details," a senior Justice Department official said.
"In any case such as this, there could come a time when an individual is no longer of intelligence value and no longer represents a threat. In such a case, an individual could be released if he agreed not to take up arms or support terrorism in any way," the official said.
The Bush administration would not offer a timetable on when Hamdi would be released.
Another official said some issues need to be worked out. "The U.S. government would not agree to anything that would in any way threaten the complete safety of U.S. citizens," said that official.
Hamdi's attorneys in recent weeks filed a motion asking he be allowed a court hearing on his detention.
The Supreme Court on June 28 concluded U.S. citizens designated by the president as enemy combatants and held under U.S. military custody can appeal their detention and defend themselves in court.
While the court also upheld the right of the executive branch to hold such suspects, the Hamdi ruling dampened the administration's aggressive antiterror policies with a measure of constitutional protections for certain terror suspects.
From Louisiana to Afghanistan
Few personal details are known about Hamdi, but it is believed his parents were living in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in the early 1980s when he was born. He has lived most of his life in Saudi Arabia and has dual citizenship.
In a legal brief, the administration said Hamdi surrendered to U.S. supported Afghan forces while armed with an AK-47 automatic rifle. "He affiliated with a Taliban unit and received weapons training, following the September 11 attacks and after U.S. and coalition forces began military operations in Afghanistan."
Both Hamdi and Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen also designated an enemy combatant, are currently being held in a military brig in North Charleston, South Carolina.
Padilla lost his Supreme Court case on a legal technicality -- the justices said his lawyers filed their appeal in the wrong federal court.
Dunham this spring was allowed to meet with his client for the first time since Hamdi was placed in military custody.
Hamdi had filed a habeas corpus appeal, an established protection against false imprisonment under which the government must either go before a judge and make the case for holding a person or release him.
The government argued it had the power to keep certain terror suspects from the judicial system on the grounds that they may pose a future threat, or know about pending terrorist attacks.
The Padilla and Hamdi appeals were the most important terrorism-related cases to come before the justices in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks. Critics say the sweeping antiterror policies put forward by President Bush and Congress in many cases trample on citizens' civil liberties.
