Levin Statement on Administration Announcement It Will Seek Dismissal of Guantanamo Lawsuits

WASHINGTON – Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., issued the following statement in response to the Administration’s announcement that it will seek to dismiss existing lawsuits questioning the legality of the detention of hundreds of foreign nationals at Guantanamo Bay Cuba, based on their argument that the Graham-Levin amendment to this year’s defense authorization and appropriations acts applies retroactively to pending cases:

“The Administration is wrong,” Levin said. “Congress specifically considered and rejected language that would have applied the Graham-Levin amendment retroactively to pending cases.”

“Throughout the consideration of the Graham-Levin amendment, the White House repeatedly urged the inclusion of language that would have applied the amendment retroactively to pending cases. In each case, I objected to this language. As a result, no such language was included in the final version of the legislation. The Administration is now seeking to end-run the legislative process and achieve a result through the courts that it was unable to obtain in Congress. I hope and expect that the courts will reject this effort.”

Levin noted that at least three efforts were made to apply the amendment to pending cases:

• The original Graham amendment approved by the Senate contained language stating that the provision “shall apply to any [habeas] application or other action that is pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.” Levin objected to this language and, as a part of a Graham-Levin compromise, this language was removed from the bill.

• Before the bill passed the Senate, the White House made an effort to insert language stating that the provision “shall apply to any [habeas] application or other action that is pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act, except that the Supreme Court of the United States shall have jurisdiction to determine the lawfulness of the removal, pursuant to such amendment, of its jurisdiction to hear any case in which certiorari has been granted as of such date”. Levin objected to this language and it was not included in the Senate-passed bill.

• During the conference, the House of Representatives proposed language stating that the provision “shall apply to any [habeas] application or other action that is pending on or after the date of enactment of this Act.” Levin objected to this language and it was not included in final version of the legislation.

Levin stated: “As I pointed out when we passed the bill, the provision says that it ‘shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.’ The meaning of these words is clear: the provision is prospective in its application, and does not apply to pending cases. The Administration is just plain wrong when it says otherwise.”