Michael Greenberger, the head of the University of Maryland, Baltimore?s Center for Health and Homeland Security, spoke with The Examiner about the U.S. Supreme Court?s review of habeus corpus rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees ? their right to challenge the constitutionality of their imprisonment.
What prepared you for this role at the center?
In July of 2001, I came to the University of Maryland Law School.
I had worked in the Clinton administration as principal deputy assistant to the attorney general.
One of my primary duties was counterterrorism policy and investigations. We ran the first field counterterrorism exercises, called TopOff, short for “top officials.”
After Sept. 11, 2001, the president of the university approached me about directing what is now called the Center for Health and Homeland Security.
Why are we still trying to figure out what rights alleged terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay have?
If they?re held in the United States, they do have habeus corpus rights. In World War II, eight German Nazi combatants [challenged] their habeus status.
One of the issues that was hotly argued is should we consider that Guantanamo is a de facto part of the United States because of the total control the U.S. exercises there.
Even if habeus is barred, if there are judicial procedures that are similar enough to habeus, the detainees do not have to be treated constitutionally.
If they were designated prisoners of war instead of unlawful combatants, would we still be addressing these issues?
In World War II, we held something like 400,000 Nazi POWs in the United States. Eight were held as enemy combatants and were brought before military tribunals with the prospect of the death penalty.
They did bring habeus petitions and failed, and six of the eight were hanged.
