Judge Suspends Proceedings in Standoff on War Prisoner
In a standoff over the constitutional rights of prisoners captured during the war in Afghanistan, a federal judge in Virginia took the rare action today of suspending all proceedings in a case in which the government has classified a prisoner as an "enemy combatant" with almost no legal protections.

The judge, Robert G. Doumar, of Federal District Court in Norfolk, Va., canceled a hearing scheduled for Thursday in which the government was to explain why it had classified Yasser Esam Hamdi, a prisoner who was born in Louisiana and raised in Saudi Arabia, as an enemy combatant. The government says the classification denies a person the rights afforded to either a prisoner of war or someone indicted in a crime.

The judge's action came after the Justice Department refused to hand over by noon on Tuesday documents justifying the government's labeling of Mr. Hamdi as an enemy combatant.

Judge Doumar has suggested for months that Mr. Hamdi had certain legal rights as an American citizen. But government prosecutors have consistently rejected this notion, arguing that Mr. Hamdi was an enemy combatant and as such had no right to a lawyer and did not need to be charged with any specific crime while he was held in the brig at the Norfolk Naval Station.

Moreover, the government has argued that the executive branch has the sole authority to make such determinations in a time of war and that under the separation of powers clause of the Constitution the judiciary has little room to overrule decisions by the commander in chief.

The Justice Department had challenged Judge Doumar's order for the documents, saying it was inappropriate and that the material he requested was highly sensitive. With the stage set for a confrontation between the parties on Thursday in Norfolk, the judge did not respond to that challenge.

But in a terse order today, the judge canceled that hearing. He cited a dispute between Mr. Hamdi and the government over whether the case could proceed in light of a government-requested stay that had been issued earlier by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va.

Justice Department officials would not comment on today's action.

Frank W. Dunham Jr., the public defender appointed to represent Mr. Hamdi, said he thought the judge's order made sense because the issue of whether the stay remained in effect had not been resolved.

"Once he realized that both sides thought the stay was in effect, he needed to pull back," Mr. Dunham said. "It's a confusing procedural situation."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/08/national/08DETA.html