Habeas corpus petitions of Guantanamo Bay detainees

The Supreme Court rules on Rasul v. Bush

In the summer of 2004 the United States Supreme Court ruled on the habeas corpus submission Rasul v. Bush. The Supreme Court confirmed that the aspect of the Bush Presidency's detainee policy that asserted that the detainees should have no access to the protections of habeas corpus was unconstitutional.

Detainee Treatment Act of 2005

The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 prohibited US military and intelligence personnel from treating detainees in ways inconsistent with Armed Forces regulations. But it also restricted Guantanamo detainees from filing new writs of habeas corpus. Additionally, the act did not close off the habeas corpus submission that were already in the works.

The Supreme Court rules on Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

In the summer of 2006 the Supreme Court ruled that the Bush Presidency lacked the Constitutional authority to empower Guantanamo military commissions. They did rule, however, that the United States Congress did have the authority to empower trial by military commission of the Guantanamo detainees.

Military Commissions Act of 2006

In addition to authorizing military commissions similar to those the Supreme Court overturned the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was intended to close off all the remaining writs of habeas corpus.

The Supreme Court and the Military Commissions Act

On June 29, 2007 the Supreme Court agreed to hear outstanding habeas corpus, opening up the possibility that they might overturn some or all of the Military Commissions Act.^[1]

The Supreme Court rules on Boumediene v. Bush

On June 12, 2008 the United States Supreme Court ruled, in Boumediene v. Bush, that the Guantanamo detainees were entitled to the protection of the United States Constitution.^[2][3][4][5] Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, described the CSR Tribunals as "inadequate", and wrote:

"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

Lists of habeas petitions filed on behalf of War on Terror detainees

Over two hundred detainees apprehended in the USA's war on terror have had habeas petitions files on their behalf.

Main article: Lists of habeas petitions filed on behalf of War on Terror detainees

The proposed Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007

Senators Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter have proposed Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007, to restore access to habeas corpus to the Guantanamo detainees.^[6] Debate began on the bill on September 17, 2007. It has been attached, as an amendment, to a Defense bill.

Boumediene v. Bush

On June 12, 2008 the United States Supreme Court ruled, in Boumediene v. Bush, the executive branch could not withhold the access to the US judicial system from the detainees held in Guantanamo.^[7][8]

^[9]

References

1. ^ Jeannie Shawl (June 29, 2007). "Supreme Court to hear Guantanamo Bay detainee habeas cases". The Jurist. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/06/supreme-court-to-hear-guantanamo-bay.php. Retrieved 2007-06-29. 
2. ^ Mark Sherman (June 12, 2008). "High Court: Gitmo detainees have rights in court". Associated Press. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iS3b8PdQ_oVlJA2eFtDvhnnTUvFwD918J1QO0. Retrieved 2008-06-12. "The court said not only that the detainees have rights under the Constitution, but that the system the administration has put in place to classify them as enemy combatants and review those decisions is inadequate."  mirror
3. ^ Mark Sherman (June 12, 2008). "Terror suspects can challenge detention: U.S. Supreme Court". Globe and Mail. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080612.wgitmo0612/BNStory/International/home. Retrieved 2008-06-12. 
4. ^ Mark Sherman (June 12, 2008). "High Court sides with Guantanamo detainees again". Montorey Herald. http://www.montereyherald.com/ci_9562577?nclick_check=1. Retrieved 2008-06-12. 
5. ^ James Oliphant (June 12, 2008). "Court backs Gitmo detainees". Baltimore Sun. http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/court_sides_with_gitmo_detaine.html. Retrieved 2008-06-12.  mirror
6. ^ "Justice for Detainees: Congress can right a wrong in the war on terrorism". Washington Post. September 18, 2007. p. A18. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/17/AR2007091701580.html. Retrieved 2007-09-18. 
7. ^ "One year on, Guantanamo cases stall in courts". Agence France Presse. 2009-06-13. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hMhmabQvNZi0817DEuy9OP0XsVfA. Retrieved 2009-06-13. 
8. ^ Lyle Denniston (2009-06-12). "Analysis: Habeas, one year later". Scotusblog. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-habeas-one-year-later/. Retrieved 2009-06-13. ^{[dead link]}
9. ^ Peter Finn, Sandhya Somashekhar (2009-06-11). "Obama Bows on Settling Detainees: Administration Gives Up on Bringing Cleared Inmates to U.S., Officials Say". Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/11/AR2009061101210_pf.html. Retrieved 2009-06-13. 

External links

• Read the rulings in the decided cases
• Guantanamo Habeas Scorecard Center for Constitutional Rights
• Linda Greenhouse (April 21, 2004). "Court cases pit US presidential power against detainees' rights". Taipei Times. http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2004/04/21/2003137534. Retrieved 2008-01-25. 
• Guantánamo and Habeas Corpus: Prisoners Win 3 out of 4 Cases, But Lose 5 out of 6 in Court of Appeals (Part One) Andy Worthington July 20, 2009
• Human Rights First; Habeas Works: Federal Courts’ Proven Capacity to Handle Guantánamo Cases (2010)
• Steven D. Schwinn (2010-01-06). "Habeas at Bagram, Round 2". http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2010/01/habeas-at-bagram-round-2.html. Retrieved 2010-11-23.