Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T00:21:19.773Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Boumediene v. Bush. 128 S.Ct. 229

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Robert M. Chesney
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
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 102 , Issue 4 , October 2008 , pp. 848 - 854
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2008

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

1 128 S.Ct. 2229 (2008), reprinted in 47 ILM 650 (2008).

2 U.S. Const. Art. I, §9, cl. 2.

3 Pub. L. No. 109–366, 120 Stat. 2600 (2006).

4 542 U.S. 466 (2004); see David, L. Sloss Case Report: Rasul v. Bush, 98 AJIL 788 (2004).Google Scholar

5 See Combatant Status Review Tribunal Process, sec. B, at <http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2004/d20040730comb.pdf>.

6 See id.

7 See Benjamin, Wittes Law and the Long War: The Future of Justice in The Age of Terror 79 (2008).Google Scholar

8 Compare Khalid v. Bush, 355 F.Supp.2d 311 (D.D.C. 2005) (holding that detainees have no constitutional or international law rights), within re Guantánamo Detainee Cases, 355 F.Supp.2d443 (D.D.C. 2005) (holding that detainees do have such rights and that the CSRT system does not satisfy them).

9 Pub. L. No. 109–148, 119 Stat. 2739 (2005).

10 Id. §1005(e)(l).

11 Id. § 1005(e)(2). The court of appeals also received comparable authority to review final judgments in military commission trials. See id. §1005(e)(3).

12 548 U.S. 557 (2006); see Peter Spiro, Case Report: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 100 AJIL 888 (2006).

13 Pub. L. No. 109–366, 120 Stat. 2600 (2006).

14 The Court had already concluded that section 7 of the MCA applies to pending cases (pp. 2243–44).

15 See De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1 (1901); Dooley v. United States, 182 U.S. 222 (1901); Armstrong v. United States, 182 U.S. 243 (1901); Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901); Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903); Dorr v. United States, 195 U.S. 138 (1904).

16 339 U.S. 763 (1950).

17 Id. at 768.

18 Brief for Respondents at 19 (quoting Eisentrager, 339 U.S. at 778). The briefs in Boumediene and al Odab are available at <http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/al-odah-v.-united-states>.

19 430 U.S. 372,381 (1977).

20 The Defense Department recently adopted regulations permitting detainees to petition the deputy secretary of defense to convene new CSRTs to take account of new evidence. The Court found this action irrelevant because the decision whether to grant such a petition is discretionary and not subject to DTA review (pp. 2273–74).

21 Justice 5, Brutality 4 , Editorial, N.Y. Times, June 13, 2008, at A28Google Scholar.

22 John, Yoo The Supreme Court Goes to War , Wall St. J., June 17, 2008, at A23.Google Scholar

23 Bismullah v. Gates, 501 F.3d 178 (D.C. Cir. 2007), rehearing denied, 503 F.3d 137, rehearing en banc denied, 514 F.3d 1291 (2008), cert, granted, judgment vacated, 128 S.Ct. 2960 (vacated for further consideration in light of Boumediene).

24 See Declaration of LT COL Stephen Abraham, attached as Appendix to Reply to Opposition to Petition for Rehearing, al Odah v. United States, No. 06–1196 (S. Ct.) (consolidated with Boumediene for argument and decision), at <http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/Al%20Odah%20reply%206–22-07.pdf>.

5 see 501 F.3d at 187.

26 But see Parhat v. Gates, 532 F.3d 834 (D.C. Cir. June 20, 2008) (holding, upon DTA review, that the government lacked sufficient evidence to justify enemy combatant determination, and ordering that detainee be released, transferred, or given a revised CSRT proceeding).

27 See Brief for the Boumediene Petitioners at 39. Cf. al-Marri v. Pucciarelli, 534 F.3d 213 (4th Cir. July 15, 2008) (en banc) (holding that alleged Al Qaeda “sleeper” agent is subject to military detention).

28 See Brief for the Respondents at 66.

29 A ruling on the scope of IHL detention authority could also have implications for the use of lethal force in the field, including missile strikes against suspected Al Qaeda members in noncombat settings.

30 See, e.g., Government’s Response to Petitioner’s Filing on Framework Procedural Issues, In re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litigation, Misc. No. 08–442 (TFH) (D.D.C. Aug. 1, 2008), at <http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/us-response-procedure-8–1-08.pdf>.

31 See, e.g., al Maqaleh v. Gates, No. 06–1669 (JDB), 2007 WL 2059128 (D.D.C. July 18, 2007) (denying motion to dismiss petition on behalf of detainees held in Afghanistan, without prejudice to renewal after Boumediene).

32 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, 1465 UNTS 85.

33 Cf. Munaf v. Geren, 128 S.Ct. 2207,2226 (2008) (stating that courts should not “second-guess” the executive branch when the latter determines that the transfer of a military detainee to Iraqi custody comports with non-refoulement concerns) (reported by Harlan Grant Cohen in this issue of the Journal).