Boumediene v. Bush

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article or section may contain an inappropriate mixture of prose and timeline.

Please help convert this timeline into prose or, if necessary, a list.

This article documents a current court case.
Information may change rapidly as the case progresses.

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Boumediene v. Bush

Boumediene v. Bush is a writ of habeas corpus submission on behalf of Lakhdar Boumediene, a naturalized citizen of Bosnia, currently being held in extrajudicial detention by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay detention camps.^[1]^[2]^[3] The case has been consolidated with habeas petition Al Odah v. United States. The case challenges the legality of Bomediene’s detention in an offshore U.S. military base as well as the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006. Oral arguments on the combined case were heard by the Supreme Court on December 5, 2007 : Complete audio.[1].

Key Facts:

Boumediene applied for a writ of habeas corpus “alleging violations of the constitution, treaties, statutes, regulations, the common law, and the law of the nations”

Guantanamo Bay = land leased by the US from Cuba (not part of the sovereign territory of the US)

Alien = persons with no property or presence in the US

Habeas Corpus: legal action through which a person can seek relief from unlawful detention

Examines the legitimacy of a detention

Several changes in the law:

Al Odah v. United States - No court has jurisdiction to grant habeas relief to Guantanamo detainees

Held that Habeas statute (28 U.S.C. §2241(a)) covers the granting of habeas corpus, but holds that courts have no jurisdiction to consider habeas relief for any alien (enemy or not)

Non-habeas claims: right to litigation does not extend to aliens in military custody (Johnson v. Eisentrager)

Rasul v. Bush: habeas corpus applies to aliens at Guantanamo (jurisdiction over the custodians was sufficient)

Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) of 2005- no jurisdiction over applications of habeas corpus of an alien detained at Guantanamo

In response to Hamdan, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006

1 Timeline
2 Amicus briefs
3 The decision
4 References
5 External links

[edit] Timeline

This section may contain original research or unverified claims.
Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (December 2007)

date	event
November 2001	President Bush asserts authority to try captives taken in the war on terror before "military commissions".
January 20, 2002	Camp X-Ray is opened in the United States' Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, in Cuba. The Bush administration asserts that since the Naval Base is not technically on US soil, the captives held there are not subject to US law, and do not have access to rights guaranteed by the US Constitution, and protection through the United States Justice System.
2002, 2003, 2004	Friends and family of approximately 200 captives initiate habeas corpus submissions. These submissions work their way through the courts.
June 28, 2004	Rasul v. Bush is the first habeas corpus submission to reach the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismisses the argument that the Naval Base at Guantanamo is beyond the reach of US law. The Supreme Court rules that the Executive Branch lacks the authority to deny captives access to the US justice system, and that the captives did have the right to initiate habeas corpus submissions. The Supreme Court rules that the Executive Branch was obliged to provide the captives with an opportunity to hear and attempt to refute whatever evidence had caused them to have been classified as "enemy combatants". As a result the Department of Defense created the Combatant Status Review Tribunals.
December 31, 2005	The United States Congress passes the Detainee Treatment Act. This act, sponsored by Senator John McCain, a former Prisoner of War who had been tortured in enemy custody, explicitly states that all captives held by the United States are protected against torture. This act also restricted further captives from initiating habeas corpus submissions. Existing habeas corpus submissions remain in the system.
July 27, 2006	Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, another habeas corpus submissions, reaches the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court rules that the Executive Branch lacked the Constitutional authority to set up military commissions to try captives taken in the "war on terror". It rules that this authority properly lay with the United States Congress. The charges against the ten captives who had been charged were quashed.
Fall 2006	The US Congress passes the Military Commissions Act, setting up Military Commissions similar to those that the Executive Branch had set up, retaining most of the features that had concerned critics. The Commissions could still hear and consider "hearsay evidence". Suspects would still be restricted from attempting to refute, or indeed even learning about, evidence against them that was classified as secret. Evidence extracted from the suspect, or other witnesses, through the use of "extended interrogation techniques", would be permitted, so long as it was extracted prior to the passing of the Detainee Treatment Act in late 2005. This act asserted that all outstanding habeas corpus submissions on behalf of the captives should be quashed.
February 20, 2007	A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals considers Lakmar Boumediene's habeas corpus submission, and upheld the Congress's authority to quash the outstanding habeas corpus submissions through the Military Commission Act.^[4]
April 2, 2007	After a petition for a review of the Circuit Court decision, the Supreme Court denied the petitioners’ writ of certiorari, thereby declining to hear the case at that time.
June 29, 2007	The Supreme Court of the United States grants a writ of certiorari to Boumediene and his co-defendants, indicating that it would hear their challenge to the Court of Appeals' decision when the Supreme Court's next Term commences (on the first Monday of October, 2007).^[5]^[3]
August 24, 2007	The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights filed an Amicus brief on behalf of Boumediene and al Odah.^[6]^[7] Over 20 supporting Amicus briefs were submitted simultaneously on behalf of Boumediene, including, the American Bar Association,^[8] retired military officers, retired federal judges, former U.S. diplomats, a sitting Republican U.S. Senator, law professors and legal historians, Canadian, British and European Parliamentarians,, the Commonwealth Lawyers Association, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR), and domestic and international non-governmental organizations.^[9]
October 9, 2007	The United States government submits its opposition briefs for Boumediene.^[9]
November 13, 2007	The petitioner files its reply briefs.^[9]
December 5, 2007	Arguments begin before U.S. Supreme Court.^[10]

[edit] Amicus briefs

The Supreme Court has received over two dozen briefs of amicus curiae on the case. Twenty-two amicus briefs have been filed in support of the petitioners, Messrs. Boumediene and Al Odah, and four have been filed in support of the respondents, the Bush Administration.

[edit] The decision

SCOTUSblog has suggested the Court will rule in favor of the government, because Justice Anthony Kennedy is assumed to be writing the opinion. Kennedy has supported the government's position in the past. The author of previous positions favoring detainee habeas corpus petitions was Justice John Paul Stevens.^[11]