A federal judge in Washington yesterday declared unconstitutional the Pentagon’s procedures for reviewing the cases of prisoners in the war on terror held at the American naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

In her 75-page decision, Judge Joyce Green found that the detainees are entitled to many of the same rights enjoyed by criminal defendants in American courts, including a right to legal counsel and a right to challenge evidence presented by the military.

“Of course, it would be far easier for the government to prosecute the war on terrorism if it could imprison all suspected ‘enemy combatants’ at Guantanamo Bay without having to acknowledge and respect any constitutional rights of detainees. That, however, is not the relevant legal test,” Judge Green wrote.

“Although this nation unquestionably must take strong leadership under the leadership of the Commander in Chief to protect itself against enormous and unprecedented threats, that necessity cannot negate the existence of the most basic fundamental rights for which the people of this country have fought and died for well over two hundred years,” the judge concluded.

Judge Green’s ruling faulted the government for suggesting that detainees not linked to any specific acts of violence could be held for simply associating with enemy fighters or terrorists. She criticized Pentagon-run review tribunals for an “inherent lack of fairness.” The judge also said some detainees’ claims of abuse at Guantanamo could not be ignored.

The decision yesterday from Judge Green was at odds with a ruling earlier in January from another judge on the same court, Richard Leon. Judge Leon rejected challenges that seven Guantanamo detainees brought to their incarceration. The role of the courts in reviewing military decisions is “highly circumscribed,” the judge wrote.

Judge Green was appointed by President Carter. Judge Leon is an appointee of President Bush.

Judge Green’s ruling did not call for the immediate release of any particular prisoner or group of detainees. Due to an unusual judicial arrangement involving the Guantanamo cases, it is unclear precisely how many detainees could be affected by her decision. Judge Green’s ruling rejected the government’s motion to throw out 11 separate cases, some of which involve multiple prisoners.

Attorneys for the detainees hailed the ruling. A lawyer with the Manhattan-based Center for Constitutional Rights, Michael Ratner, said the decision will increase pressure on the government to dismantle the detention camp at Guantanamo.

“I don’t think Guantanamo exists much longer in the way it is structured right now,” Mr. Ratner said in an interview. “It’s an extraordinary ruling.”

Military officials signaled recently that they would like to turn nearly all the prisoners over to their home countries or other nations that may accept them.

Mr. Ratner said the government may wish to make the cases moot so the courts never rule with finality on the scope of the military’s right to detain people deemed to be threats to national security.

“The importance of saving that right is probably as important as hanging on to any individual detainee,” he said.

In a statement, the Justice Department noted the disagreement between the two judges and said an appeal was under consideration. The statement also warned that giving all detainees full constitutional rights was highly impractical.

“One can only imagine the chaos had the Constitution been interpreted in that fashion when our military had custody of millions of enemy combatants and POWs during World War II,” the department said. “The president’s longstanding powers to detain enemy combatants – powers that are threatened by today’s decision – are critical to the ongoing war on terrorism.”

The Supreme Court ruled last year that prisoners at Guantanamo have a right to file legal challenges in American courts.

However, the high court’s decision was vague about what district court judges should do with those challenges.

In her ruling yesterday, Judge Green said she “would have welcomed a clearer declaration” from the justices on that point.

“The Supreme Court opinions were so unspecific as to what was required, that this was predictable,” said a law professor at Temple University, Jan Ting.

However, another legal scholar said there may be some wisdom in the Supreme Court’s apparent decision to take a slow and deliberate approach to the Guantanamo cases.

“The right answer is to say, ‘No, no, no. You shouldn’t have done that,’ two years after the war is over,” said a professor at Chapman University law school in California, John Eastman, “That way you don’t get bad constitutional decisions and you don’t get unfettered discretion for the president.”