habeas corpus at guantanamo bay timeline

7/27/2019 Habeas Corpus at Guantanamo Bay Timeline

1/3


2/3

the practicalimpossibility of flying the detainees back and forth to the United States for habeas

petitions, an issue that is not relevant in the case of the Guantanamo Bay detainees.

Relevant Precedent: Rasul v. Bush (2004)

In Rasul, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the U.S. court system has proper jurisdiction over

Guantanamo detainees. Under this precedent, the clause in the Military Commissions Act stating thatU.S. courts may nothear habeas petitions would appear to be obviously unconstitutional, but Rasuldid

not explicitly say so.

The Majority Ruling: Justice Anthony Kennedy

In a 5-4 ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote an opinion, joined by justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter,

and Stevens, in which he upheld the Rasulstandard and specifically stated that the Bush

administration's suspension of habeas corpus under the Military Commissions Act violates Article I,

Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution.

The majority was otherwise identical to the majority in Rasul; theretirementof Justice Sandra Day

O'Connor, and her replacement by the more conservative Justice Samuel Alito, changed the majority

from 6-3 to 5-4.

Dissent: Chief Justice John Roberts

In a fairly reasonable dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by justices Alito, Scalia, and Thomas,

argues that the Bush administration's military tribunal system actually provides habeas corpus

protection; it just does so through military rather than judiciary channels. Roberts argues

that Boumediene amounts to an unconstitutional assertion of judicial authority over executive branch

military decisions, and places the fate of detainees in the hands of civilian judges who are not privy, and

cannot be made privy, to a comparabledegreeof nationalsecurity data.

Dissent: Justice Antonin Scalia

In an emotionally charged dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by the chief justice and justices Alito

and Thomas, refers to the past ten years of terrorist attacks: to the bombing of the USS Cole, the

bombing of Marine barracks in Lebanon, the bombing of the Khobar Towers, the bombing of U.S.

embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, the 9/11 attacks, and military casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq. "The

Nation," Scalia writes, "will live to regret what the Court has done this day," as the ruling "will almost

certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Scalia also argues that the detainees' imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay, which is not technically part of

the United States, renders them ineligible for habeas corpus underEisentrager.

Concurrence with Majority Ruling: Justice David Souter

Justice David Souter's concurrence with the majority ruling, joined by justices Breyer and Ginsburg, is

primarily a rebuttal to the Roberts and Scalia dissents. In particular, he argues that if habeas corpus

means anything at all, it means that prisoners can't be locked up for six years without any judicial

oversight. Souter describes the majority ruling as "an act of perseverance in trying to make habeas
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/tp/Boumediene-v-Bush.htmhttp://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/tp/Boumediene-v-Bush.htmhttp://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/tp/Boumediene-v-Bush.htmhttp://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/tp/Boumediene-v-Bush.htmhttp://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/tp/Boumediene-v-Bush.htmhttp://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/tp/Boumediene-v-Bush.htmhttp://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/tp/Boumediene-v-Bush.htmhttp://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/tp/Boumediene-v-Bush.htmhttp://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/tp/Boumediene-v-Bush.htmhttp://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/tp/Boumediene-v-Bush.htmhttp://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/tp/Boumediene-v-Bush.htmhttp://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/tp/Boumediene-v-Bush.htm


3/3

review, and the obligation of the courts to provide it, mean something of value both to prisoners and to

the Nation."

Aftermath

President Bush has agreed to honor the ruling.

Republican presidential nominee John McCain responded to the ruling at a June 2008town hall meeting,

when he described it as "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country" and went on to say:

These are people who are not citizens. They do not and never have been given the rights that citizens in

this country have. Now, my friends, there are some bad people down there. There are some bad people.

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama described the ruling as "a rejection of the Bush

administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo" and "an important step toward re-

establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law."
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/13/mccain-guantanamo-ruling-one-of-the-worst-decisions-in-history/http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/13/mccain-guantanamo-ruling-one-of-the-worst-decisions-in-history/http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/13/mccain-guantanamo-ruling-one-of-the-worst-decisions-in-history/http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/13/mccain-guantanamo-ruling-one-of-the-worst-decisions-in-history/

habeas corpus at guantanamo bay timeline

Documents