Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-c654p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-26T22:32:12.439Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ability of Detainees in Cuba to Obtain Federal Habeas Corpus Review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2017

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 98 , Issue 1 , January 2004 , pp. 188 - 190
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2004 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For background on the U.S. decision not to consider these prisoners POWs, see Sean, D. Murphy, Contemporary Practice of the United States, 96 AJIL 475 (2002)Google Scholar. By November 2003, 660 detainees remained at Guantanamo, and 64 detainees (mostly Afghans and Pakistanis) had been send back to the home countries. See Lane, Charles, Justices to Rule on Detainees’ Rights, Wash. Post, Nov. 11, 2003, at Al.Google Scholar

2 Al Odah v. United States, 321 F.3d 1134, 1136 (D.C. Cir. 2003).

3 339 U.S. 763 (1950). The opinion was written by Justice Robert H.Jackson, the former U.S. chief prosecutor at Nuremberg.

4 321 F.3d at 1141.

5 Id at 1140.

6 A different petition previously failed due to lack of standing. In early 2002, a group of journalists, lawyers, professors, and members of the clergy filed a petition for habeas corpus relief in U.S. district court in California, alleging that because the detainees were being held incommunicado and had been denied access to legal counsel, the petition was being filed on their behalf. The district court dismissed the petition for lack of “next-friend” standing or, alternatively, for lack of jurisdiction under Eisentrager. See Coalition of Clergy v. Bush, 189 F.Supp.2d 1036 (CD. Cal. 2002); see also Sean, D. Murphy, Contemporary Practice of the United States, 96 AJIL 481 (2002).Google Scholar The Ninth Circuit affirmed on the ground that the petitioners lacked standing, but vacated the district court’s jurisdictional ruling based on Eisentrager. See Coalition of Clergy v. Bush, 310 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2002).

7 Gherebi v. Bush, No. CV 03-1267-AHM( JTL) (CD. Cal. May 13, 2003).

8 Gherebi v. Bush, 352 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir. 2003).

9 Id. at 1285-87.

10 Id. at 1291.

11 M a t 1294-95.

12 Id. at 1296-97 (citing a 1907 opinion by the U.S. attorney general).

13 Id. at 1297-98.

14 Al Odah v. United States, 124 S.Ct. 534 (2003).

15 Gherebi v. Bush, No. 03-55785 (9th Cir. Dec. 18, 2003) (order).