US terrorism trials face court challenges

New military trial rules for terrorism suspects that President George W. Bush endorsed and Congress approved will draw vigorous court challenges and could be struck down for violating rights guaranteed under the US Constitution, critics and legal experts said.

The legal battle will likely be ultimately decided by the US Supreme Court, they said.

They cited the bill's provisions that strip foreign suspects of the right to challenge their detentions in US courts, the broad definition of enemy combatants and what they described as unfair rules for military trials, including some use of hearsay and coerced evidence.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse defended the legislation as "plainly constitutional" and denied it foreclosed all judicial review.

The Supreme Court, by a five-three vote on June 29, struck down as illegal Bush's original system of military trials established after the September 11 attacks for prisoners at the US Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The ruling said the administration could either rely on the traditional US court-martial system or seek congressional approval of rules to prosecute and interrogate the prisoners. The issue has become a major political battle before the November 7 elections in which control of Congress is at stake.

Democrats and even some Republican lawmakers said taking away the prisoners' right to have habeas corpus hearings in federal court was unconstitutional and would be struck down by the Supreme Court. The experts agreed.

Michael Ratner, president of the New York-based Centre for Constitutional Rights, which represents hundreds of Guantanamo prisoners, vowed to challenge the removal of the habeas corpus rights. Ratner said such an opportunity could arise when the administration moves to dismiss pending Guantanamo cases to apply the new rules. Defence lawyers could then respond by challenging the rules' constitutionality.