In This Article
Subscribe to Politics Updates
Supreme Court Considers Habeas Rights for Guantanamo Inmates
by
findingDulcinea Staff
The U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments for Boumediene v. Bush; political pundits begin to dissect the justices’ reactions.
30-Second Summary
The hearing took place on Dec. 5 and consolidated two cases, Boumediene v. Bush and al-Odah v. United States, to include 37 plaintiffs currently detained at Guantanamo, Cuba.
The U.S. Naval base at Guantanamo holds a number of "unlawful combatants," prisoners accused of being at war with the United States while fighting for a non-state actor, in this case a terrorist organization.
The United States does not extend the protection of the Geneva Convention to such prisoners. Nor are they given habeas corpus rights, which normally require that a detainee be formally charged in court to be retained in custody. For those reasons, the Guantanamo base has become an issue of international controversy.
Two questions are central to the court’s deliberations: first, whether the Military Commissions Act of 2006 stripped the federal court of jurisdiction over foreign citizens imprisoned indefinitely at the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay; and second, whether the defense’s habeas corpus petitions have proved “unlawful confinement,” which would mean the reinstatement of habeas rights or would, at the least, lead to a further hearing on the merits of the case.
Seth Waxman, the former solicitor general during the Clinton years, argued on behalf of Boumediene, and current Solicitor General Paul A. Clement argued on behalf of the Bush Administration and the United States.
Clement asked the court to balance the detainees’ rights to challenge their detention with the goal of successfully prosecuting the war on terror. Waxman appealed to the right of habeas corpus, saying, "These 37 men have been held in isolation for nearly six years."
The court’s conclusion will be announced in the spring.
The U.S. Naval base at Guantanamo holds a number of "unlawful combatants," prisoners accused of being at war with the United States while fighting for a non-state actor, in this case a terrorist organization.
The United States does not extend the protection of the Geneva Convention to such prisoners. Nor are they given habeas corpus rights, which normally require that a detainee be formally charged in court to be retained in custody. For those reasons, the Guantanamo base has become an issue of international controversy.
Two questions are central to the court’s deliberations: first, whether the Military Commissions Act of 2006 stripped the federal court of jurisdiction over foreign citizens imprisoned indefinitely at the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay; and second, whether the defense’s habeas corpus petitions have proved “unlawful confinement,” which would mean the reinstatement of habeas rights or would, at the least, lead to a further hearing on the merits of the case.
Seth Waxman, the former solicitor general during the Clinton years, argued on behalf of Boumediene, and current Solicitor General Paul A. Clement argued on behalf of the Bush Administration and the United States.
Clement asked the court to balance the detainees’ rights to challenge their detention with the goal of successfully prosecuting the war on terror. Waxman appealed to the right of habeas corpus, saying, "These 37 men have been held in isolation for nearly six years."
The court’s conclusion will be announced in the spring.
Headline Links: Boumediene v. Bush
The Washington Post asserts that the justices seem divided over the arguments presented at the hearing. Clement asked the court to balance the detainees’ rights to challenge their detention against the goal of successfully prosecuting the war on terror; while former General Solicitor Seth Waxman appealed to the right of habeas corpus.
Source: The Washington Post
Reference Material: Oral arguments and the questions before the court
"Supreme Court Weighs Guantanamo Habeas Cases”
Legal news and research source Jurist explains that the court heard oral arguments on whether detainees at Guantanamo Bay should be allowed to challenge their detentions in federal court. The site highlights that both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Scalia appeared skeptical concerning the detainees’ argument that they should be entitled to civilian court review.
Source: Jurist
The court is considering two questions: one, if the Military Commissions Act of 2006 stripped the federal court of jurisdiction over foreign citizens imprisoned indefinitely at the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay; two, whether the defense’s habeas corpus petitions have demonstrated the “unlawful confinement,” which would require habeas rights or at least a civilian hearing on the merits of the case. The document is available as a PDF.
Source: The Supreme Court of the United States
Oyez, a multimedia archive of the Supreme Court of the United States, offers an audio recording of the oral arguments of Boumediene v. Bush.
Source: Oyez
Opinions & Analysis: A divided court?
Tony Mauro of online news source Legal Times asserts that the Justices appeared “deeply divided” over the issue of whether detainees have a right to habeas corpus. Mauro also believes that there appears to be a possibility that justices could send the case back to lower courts “for a fuller examination of the new appeals process as a substitute for traditional habeas corpus review.”
Source: Legal Times
Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal observed that the majority of the Supreme Court justices seemed “skeptical” of the government’s arguments.
Source: The Wall Street Journal
Related Links: Briefs, proceedings and orders, and the Supreme Court Web site
The American Bar Association provides the merit and amicus briefs for the petitioners and respondents in the consolidated case of Boumediene v. Bush. Merit briefs concern the intrinsic rights and wrongs of the case being argued and are written by non-counsel members; amicus briefs concern legal points that provide supportive information for either side and are volunteered and written by non-counsel members.
Source: American Bar Association
Lakhdar Boumediene, et al., Petitioners v. George W. Bush, President of the United States, et al. shows the proceedings and orders for this case as well as the dates of these actions.
Source: The Supreme Court of the United States
The Docket for the Khaled A. F. al-Odah, Next Friend of Fawzi Khalid Abdullah Fahad al-Odah, et al., Petitioners v. United States, et al. shows the proceedings and orders for this case as well as the dates of these actions.
Source: The Supreme Court of the United States
The official Web site of the Supreme Court of the United States provides information about the court and cases including dockets, oral arguments and opinions.
Source: The Supreme Court of the United States
The general counsel of the Department of Defense wrote an overview of the issue of enemy combatants, with particular reference to the War on Terror and Guantanamo for U.S. think tank the Council on Foreign Relations. The article describes the distinction made between "lawful" and "unlawful" combatants, which is central to Boumediene v. Bush.
Source: Council on Foreign Relations: "Enemy Combatants"
Most Recent Beyond The Headlines
© 2012 Dulcinea Media, Inc.
