For all of you who I promised I would talk to about Boumediene once I read the opinion:
Some background: Boumediene v. Bush is a case that was seen by the Supreme Court this term dealing with five men being currently held at Guantanamo Bay. Four of them are legal Bosnian citizens and the fifth is a legal resident. They were originally arrested on information from the American government given to the Bosnian government suggesting that they were planning to bomb the US Embassy in Bosnia. After a three month investigation and a ruling by the Bosnian Supreme Court it was determined that there was no evidence to support this claim and they were put under humanitarian protection upon their release. At that time the US government contacted the Bosnian government letting them know that if the five men were not handed over to US forces that diplomatic ties would be cut. Upon their release the men were taken by US forces and transfered to GB, where they have been for over six years.
The major questions examined in this case were:
1. Should the Military Commissions Act of 2006 be interpreted to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by foreign citizens detained at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?
2. If so, is the Military Commissions Act of 2006 a violation of the Suspension Clause of the Constitution?
3. Are the detainees at Guantanamo Bay entitled to the protection of the Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law and of the Geneva Conventions?
4. Can the detainees challenge the adequacy of judicial review provisions of the MCA before they have sought to invoke that review? (Oyez)
The court decided in favor of the men being held at Guantanamo Bay (the petitioners).
Here's the low down - basically the 5-4 majority determined that the body of legal history that was most sufficiently similar to the current situation at Guantanamo Bay is that dealing with US territories. Simply put, they determined that since we have shown no intention of leaving GB anytime soon (and since we have been there since 1903) the actions of the US military and government that go on at GB should be treated in the same manner as those in US territories (such as Guam and Puerto Rico) - meaning that since the Constitution has been applied fully there it should also be fully applied to Guantanamo Bay.
It is a simple argument and one that was not brought up by either of the two sides in oral argument (although to be fair, they were asked to address the question of the application of the writ in 1789, at which time it was not determined that the Constitution applied to our territories).
The opinion means that prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay have a "constitutional right" to seek writs of habeas corpus (investigations into the legality of their capture and detention).
Kennedy wrote for the majority, explaining the crux of this decision:
"...the United States is, for all practical purposes, answerable to no other sovereign for its acts on the base...the government's view is that the Constitution had no effect [at Guantanamo Bay], at least as to noncitizens, because the United States disclaimed sovereignty in the formal sense of the term..." However, "[o]ur basic charter cannot be contracted away like this. The Constitution grants Congress and the President the power to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not the power to decide when and where its terms apply. Even when the United States acts outside its borders, its powers are not ;absolute and unlimited' but are subject 'to such restrictions as are expressed in the Constitution' Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 44(1885)."
This was a great success for human rights and an important step in re-establishing the integrity of the American legal system.
However, it is not the end. I will continue to keep you updated on what comes up.
For more information on the case check out Oyez
or FindLaw
P.S. As soon as I get through the dissenting opinions I'll be sure to give you a concise overview.
No comments:
Post a Comment