To the editors of the Post---

Some of the criticisms you make of Judge Robert Doumar of the US District Court
for Eastern Virginia in your editorial "Half Right on Mr. Hamdi" (8/20/2002)
appear mistaken to me.

First, you complain that Judge Doumar is attempting to "assess the claims [of
the government] against the primary source materials" and imply that this is
inappropriate and misdirected. You go on to criticize him for not repeating his
order to allow Mr. Hamdi access to counsel.

But you're missing the key point of the order, which states plainly:

"This court finds that Hamdi is entitled to due process under the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.

"The question then becomes whether the [government's] classification of Hamdi's
combatant status has violated his due process rights under the Constitution."

Judge Doumar's main object is not to review whether the government has stated
the facts fairly and accurately (though that is still an open question), but to
review the government's determination of Hamdi's status as an "illegal
combatant" and ensure it was made by valid authority acting in accordance with
the law.

I believe that Judge Doumar's finding that Hamdi is entitled to due process
should and will stand.  Mr. Hamdi will accordingly have to be granted access to
legal counsel at some point for exactly the reason your editorial asserts: so he
can speak to the facts for himself.  I think Judge Doumar has this fully in
view, and I think the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals may very well have made a
reversible error on this point in their remand.

The government has now replied with a request to appeal the court's order as it
pertains to factual information and intelligence, but has also indicated that
they will comply with the order with regard to the criteria used to determine
Mr. Hamdi's status.

This is a very important development, because it will put the government on
record as to exact criteria they are using in these cases for the first time,
which may --at last-- give Judge Doumar a sufficient basis to overcome the
government's procedural stonewalling and address the central issues in the case,
the government's spurious "illegal combatant" designation in particular. When
and if that happens, I believe the court will have to find the government's
treatment of Hamdi and the other prisoners illegal.

Judge Doumar is in uncharted territory here.  From reading his opinions and
orders in this case, I get the impression of a good man with an honest and
informed view of the real issues and importance of the case. I think he's knows
what he's doing about as well as anyone could under the circumstances, and I'd
suggest that you read and consider what he says more carefully the next time.

Regards,

Charles Gittings
Oakland, California

August 20, 2002