The Supreme Court’s Guantánamo ruling: what does it mean?
13.6.08
Those who cherish the United States’ historical adherence to the rule of law — myself included — were delighted to hear that the US Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, in the case of Boumediene v. Bush, that the prisoners at Guantánamo “have the constitutional right to habeas corpus,” enabling them to challenge the basis of their detention, under the terms of the 800-year old “Great Writ” of habeas corpus, which prohibits the suspension of prisoners’ rights to challenge the basis of their detention except in “cases of rebellion or invasion.”
That this decision was required at all was remarkable, as it was almost four years ago, on 29 June 2004, that the Supreme Court ruled, in the case of Rasul v. Bush, that Guantánamo — chosen as a base for the prison because it was presumed to be beyond the reach of the US courts — was “in every practical respect a United States territory,” and that the prisoners therefore had habeas corpus rights, enabling the prisoners to challenge the basis of their detention.
The difference between then and now is that, in Rasul v. Bush, the Supreme Court ruled only that the prisoners had statutory habeas rights, and, following the ruling, the executive responded in two ways that completely undermined the Supreme Court’s verdict.
The first of these — as lawyers began applying to visit prisoners to establish habeas cases — was the establishment of Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs) at Guantánamo, which were set up, ostensibly, to review the prisoners’ designation as “enemy combatants,” who could be held without charge or trial. In reality, they were a lamentable replacement for a valid judicial challenge. Although the prisoners were allowed to present their own version of the events that led up to their capture, they were not allowed legal representation, and were subjected to secret evidence that they were unable to see or challenge.
Last June, Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham, a veteran of US intelligence, who worked on the CSRTs, delivered a damning verdict on their legitimacy, condemning them as the administrative equivalent of show trials, reliant upon generalized and often “generic” evidence, and designed to rubber-stamp the prisoners’ prior designation as “enemy combatants.” Filed as an affidavit in Al Odah v. United States, one of the cases consolidated with Boumediene, Lt. Col. Abraham’s testimony was regarded, by legal experts, as the trigger that spurred the Supreme Court, which had rejected an appeal on behalf of the prisoners in April 2007, to reverse its decision and to agree to hear the cases. The reversal was so rare that it had last taken place 60 years before.
The executive’s second response to Rasul was to remove the prisoners’ statutory rights, persuading the third strand of the American power base — the politicians in Congress — to pass two hideously flawed pieces of legislation: the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, and the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
The Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), which originated as an anti-torture bill conceived by Senator John McCain, was hijacked by the executive, who managed to get an amendment passed that removed the prisoners’ habeas rights, although the legislation was so shoddy that it was not entirely clear whether the prisoners had been stripped of their rights entirely, or whether pending cases would still be considered. What was clear, however, was that the DTA limited any review of the prisoners’ cases to the DC Circuit Court (rather than the Supreme Court), preventing any independent fact-finding to challenge the substance of the administration’s allegations, and mandating the judges to rule only on whether or not the CSRTs had followed their own rules, and whether or not those rules were valid.
In the fall of 2006, following a second momentous decision in the Supreme Court, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, in which the justices ruled that the proposed trials by Military Commission for those held at Guantánamo (which also relied on the use of secret evidence) were illegal under domestic and international law, the executive persuaded Congress to pass the Military Commissions Act (MCA), which reinstated the Military Commissions and also removed any lingering doubts about the prisoners’ habeas rights, stating, explicitly, “No court, justice or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.” In a further attempt to stifle dissent, the MCA defined an “enemy combatant” as someone who has either engaged in or supported hostilities against the US, or “has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the secretary of defense.”
The wheels of justice revolve so slowly that it has taken over a year and a half since the passing of the MCA for the Supreme Court to stamp its authority on the conceits of both the executive and Congress, and cynics can argue that all of this could have been avoided if the Supreme Court had insisted on the prisoners’ Constitutional habeas rights in June 2004. Nevertheless, Thursday’s ruling — however belatedly — comprehensively demolishes the habeas-stripping provisions of both the DTA and the MCA.
In no uncertain terms, Justice Anthony Kennedy, delivering the Court’s majority opinion, ruled that the “procedures for review of the detainees’ status” in the DTA “are not an adequate and effective substitute for habeas corpus,” and that therefore the habeas-stripping component of the MCA “operates as an unconstitutional suspension of the writ.” These judgments, which should soundly embarrass the nations’ politicians, could hardly be more clear, and although it is uncertain how the administration will respond in its dying days, it seems unlikely that the executive will be able to prevent a slew of habeas cases, which have, effectively, been held in a kind of legal gridlock for years, from progressing to court.
The only other obvious recourse, which will also help the prisoners to escape from the intolerable legal limbo in which they have been held for up to six and a half years, is that the administration will suddenly develop a previously undreamt-of diplomatic dexterity, and will make arrangements for the release of a large number of the 273 remaining prisoners without having to endure the acute embarrassment of justifying, in a proper courtroom, the hearsay, the innuendo, the generic information masquerading as evidence, and the fruits of torture, coercion and bribery that it has used to imprison these men for so many years.
Since 9/11, sadly, justice in the US has moved so slowly that on occasion it has appeared to be dead, but Thursday’s verdict is a resounding triumph for the importance of the law as a check on unfettered executive power and the caprice of politicians. As Justice Kennedy stated in his opinion, “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.” He added, “To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this court, say ‘what the law is,’” a quote from an 1803 ruling, in which the Supreme Court explained its right to review acts of Congress, which, of course, reinforces the supremacy of the separation of powers that lies at the heart of the United States Constitution.
POSTSCRIPT: Please see Guantánamo Habeas Results: The Definitive List for the full story of how, after judges approved 38 Guantánamo prisoners for release, the D.C. Circuit Court gutted habeas corpus of all meaning.
Andy Worthington is the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by Macmillan in the US, and available from Amazon — click on the following for the US and the UK). To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to my RSS feed, and see here for my definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, published in March 2009.
As published on AlterNet, the Huffington Post, CounterPunch and Antiwar.com.
See the following for a sequence of articles dealing with the crucial testimony of Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham and other Guantánamo whistleblowers: Guantánamo whistleblowers: Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham is not the first insider to condemn the kangaroo courts (July 2007), The Guantánamo whistleblower, a Libyan shopkeeper, some Chinese Muslims and a desperate government (July 2007), Guantánamo: more whistleblowers condemn the tribunals (August 2007), A New Guantánamo Whistleblower Steps Forward to Criticize the Tribunal Process (October 2007), Guantánamo whistleblower launches new attack on rigged tribunals (November 2007), Guantánamo and the Supreme Court: the most important habeas corpus case in modern history (December 2007), Guantánamo and the Supreme Court: What Happened? (December 2007), Guantánamo whistleblower Stephen Abraham addresses European Parliament (March 2008), An interview with Guantánamo whistleblower Stephen Abraham (Part One) (December 2008), An interview with Guantánamo whistleblower Stephen Abraham (Part Two) (December 2008), Guantánamo: Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics (February 2009).
For a sequence of articles dealing with the Guantánamo habeas cases, see: Guantánamo as Alice in Wonderland (Uighurs’ first court victory, June 2008), What’s Happening with the Guantánamo cases? (July 2008), Government Says Six Years Is Not Long Enough To Prepare Evidence (September 2008), From Guantánamo to the United States: The Story of the Wrongly Imprisoned Uighurs (October 2008), Guantánamo Uyghurs’ resettlement prospects skewered by Justice Department lies (October 2008), Guilt By Torture: Binyam Mohamed’s Transatlantic Quest for Justice (November 2008), After 7 Years, Judge Orders Release of Guantánamo Kidnap Victims (November 2008), Is Robert Gates Guilty of Perjury in Guantánamo Torture Case? (December 2008), A New Year Message to Barack Obama: Free the Guantánamo Uighurs (January 2009), The Top Ten Judges of 2008 (January 2009), No End in Sight for the “Enemy Combatants” of Guantánamo (January 2009), Judge Orders Release of Guantánamo’s Forgotten Child (January 2009), How Cooking For The Taliban Gets You Life In Guantánamo (January 2009), Bad News And Good News For The Guantánamo Uighurs (February 2009), The Nobodies Formerly Known As Enemy Combatants (March 2009), Farce at Guantánamo, as cleared prisoner’s habeas petition is denied (April 2009), Obama’s First 100 Days: A Start On Guantánamo, But Not Enough (May 2009), Judge Condemns “Mosaic” Of Guantánamo Intelligence, And Unreliable Witnesses (May 2009), Pain At Guantánamo And Paralysis In Government (May 2009), Guantánamo: A Prison Built On Lies (May 2009), Free The Guantánamo Uighurs! (May 2009), Guantánamo And The Courts (Part One): Exposing The Bush Administration’s Lies (July 2009), Obama’s Failure To Deliver Justice To The Last Tajik In Guantánamo (July 2009), Obama And The Deadline For Closing Guantánamo: It’s Worse Than You Think (July 2009), How Judge Huvelle Humiliated The Government In Guantánamo Case (Mohamed Jawad, July 2009), As Judge Orders Release Of Tortured Guantánamo Prisoner, Government Refuses To Concede Defeat (Mohamed Jawad, July 2009), Guantánamo As Hotel California: You Can Check Out Any Time You Like, But You Can Never Leave (August 2009), Judge Orders Release From Guantánamo Of Kuwaiti Charity Worker (August 2009). Also see: Justice extends to Bagram, Guantánamo’s Dark Mirror (April 2009), Judge Rules That Afghan “Rendered” To Bagram In 2002 Has No Rights (July 2009).
Who's still at Guantánamo?
74 Responses
Andy Worthington says...
I don’t normally post comments on my articles from other blogs, but I was impressed by this comment from wldswmmr, after this article was published on the Huffington Post:
“I would like to thank you, Mr. Worthington, for your dedication to this cause, and for your deeply humane decency in following this story to this point. I read your book about Guantánamo and was impressed with its thorough research and overall fairness. Your point has never been to dismiss the possibility that prisoners held at Guantánamo might, in some instances, pose a security risk to the world. It is that the United States has never tried to institute a fair and reasonable procedure for determining who among the prisoners have been unfairly detained and deprived not just of justice, but of the right to any avenue of address at all. When the history of the Bush Administration is written, the chapter on Guantánamo will epitomize everything that was wrong with a system that relied on fear-mongering to suppress the voices of justice and to institutionalize racism and bigotry.”
Thanks.
...on June 14th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Andy Worthington says...
I also received the following message from Kenny Michael, who had an interesting take on the decision:
“The crazy thing about the Supreme Court decision is that if the Court had accepted the US government’s argument, it would have given the Cuban courts jurisdiction over the Gitmo detainees! The government argued that jurisdiction depended on de jure sovereignty and de jure sovereignty at Gitmo lay with Cuba. Thus, the Cuban courts could order the release of prisoners, who could then claim habeas corpus, not on the basis of any original habeas corpus jurisdiction of the US courts, but in execution of a foreign judgment, in regard to which they had jurisdiction inasmuch as the unlawful jailer was the US military, over which the US courts unquestionably had jurisdiction! I would guess that part of the reason why they decided as they did was so as not to make total fools of themselves in front of the whole legal world by landing in that situation!”
...on June 14th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Michael Meo says...
What gives me pause about this case is, not only is it a split decision, decided by the narrow margin of a single vote, but it also took place only because of an extremely rare reversal, in April 2007, of the Court’s decision not to hear this case.
As you point out, the last occasion for such a reversal was 60 years ago.
Stephen Abraham’s career suicide, thank heavens, was not without effect. The continuation of some semblance of the rule of law in the United States depended upon it.
...on June 14th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Lough Callahan says...
Where can I get a copy of the full opinions? I am predisposed to support your position strongly but want to know the specific issue, and read the ruling and dissent, to be in a position to confirm this belief and try to convince others.
...on June 15th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Andy Worthington says...
I recently established contact with Chris Floyd, a fearless critic of the crimes of the Bush administration, after he mentioned an article on mine in a piece about the Boumediene decision on his Empire Burlesque site:
http://www.chris-floyd.com/content/view/1540/135/
This is not the first time Chris has mentioned my work, but it was the first time, for some inexplicable reason, that I had discovered how to get in touch with him.
If you like what’s here, I’m sure you’ll like Chris’ work. Pay him a visit.
...on July 13th, 2008 at 11:32 am
A Letter To Barack Obama From A Guantánamo Uighur by Andy Worthington « Dandelion Salad says...
[…] For the other 17, justice was to prove more elusive, and it was until June 2008, in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling confirming that the Guantánamo prisoners had habeas corpus rights (the right to challenge the […]
...on March 29th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Britain’s Guantánamo: Fact or Fiction? by Andy Worthington « Dandelion Salad says...
[…] started to approve the release of prisoners, and is continuing to allow judges — empowered by a Supreme Court ruling last June — to challenge the Bush administration’s secret evidence, with the result that, in 24 […]
...on April 4th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Farce at Guantánamo, as cleared prisoner’s habeas petition is denied by Andy Worthington « Dandelion Salad says...
[…] four years later) that the Supreme Court once more addressed the prisoners’ habeas rights, ruling as unconstitutional the provisions in two pieces of legislation — the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, and the […]
...on April 7th, 2009 at 12:50 am
Justice extends to Bagram, Guantánamo’s Dark Mirror by Andy Worthington « Dandelion Salad says...
[…] (PDF) that the habeas rights granted by the Supreme Court to the Guantánamo prisoners last June in Boumediene v. Bush also extended to the foreign prisoners in Bagram, because, as he explained succinctly, “the […]
...on April 7th, 2009 at 6:40 am
Obama’s First 100 Days: A Start On Guantánamo, But Not Enough « Dandelion Salad says...
[…] About 40 of these men were approved for release after their cases were reviewed by multiple military review boards at Guantánamo, and the rest were ordered to be freed by courts on the US mainland within the last six months, when, after long delays, the lower courts were finally empowered to review the prisoners’ claims for habeas corpus, following last June’s Supreme Court ruling in Boumediene v. Bush. […]
...on May 4th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Judge Condemns “Mosaic” Of Guantánamo Intelligence, And Unreliable Witnesses by Andy Worthington « Dandelion Salad says...
[…] from Guantánamo because of the weakness of the government’s evidence. Since the Supreme Court reinstated the prisoners’ habeas corpus rights last June, judges have ordered the release of 25 prisoners in the 29 cases that have so far been […]
...on May 15th, 2009 at 12:28 am
Guantánamo: A Prison Built On Lies « Dandelion Salad says...
[…] (in which the prisoners are seeking to have their cases dismissed by the courts, as mandated by the Supreme Court last June) that have resulted in judges pouring scorn on the government’s supposed […]
...on May 20th, 2009 at 5:20 am
Life After Guantánamo: Lakhdar Boumediene Speaks by Andy Worthington « Dandelion Salad says...
[…] embassy in Sarajevo, and flown to Guantánamo — in my book The Guantánamo Files. I also covered the Supreme Court case which bore Boumediene’s name — and which allowed the Guantánamo prisoners to challenge the […]
...on May 30th, 2009 at 1:32 am
Free The Guantánamo Uighurs! by Andy Worthington « Dandelion Salad says...
[…] the wish of the Executive to detain him indefinitely.” Judge Rogers also maintained that, in Boumediene v. Bush (last June’s ruling that granted the Guantánamo prisoners habeas rights), the Supreme Court not […]
...on June 1st, 2009 at 6:59 am
Judge Rules That Afghan “Rendered” To Bagram In 2002 Has No Rights by Andy Worthington « Dandelion Salad says...
[…] held at Bagram were beyond the reach of the US courts, and, specifically, beyond the reach of Boumediene v. Bush, the Supreme Court ruling that granted habeas corpus rights to the Guantánamo prisoners in June […]
...on July 6th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Guantánamo And The Courts Part One: Exposing The Bush Administration’s Lies by Andy Worthington « Dandelion Salad says...
[…] of the prisoners’ cases, which had been triggered last June when the Supreme Court ruled, in Boumediene v. Bush, that the prisoners had habeas corpus […]
...on July 15th, 2009 at 10:16 am
“La ‘detención preventiva’ es una traición radical a nuestros valores más fundamentales” – P+DH [periodismo + derechos humanos] says...
[…] para modificar sus postura sobre las peticiones de habeas corpus de los prisioneros (a raíz de un trascendental dictamen del Tribunal Supremo del pasado mes de junio) con respecto a la de la administración Bush. Como consecuencia de ello han llegado a los […]
...on July 20th, 2009 at 7:37 am
Obama And The Deadline For Closing Guantánamo: It’s Worse Than You Think by Andy Worthington « Dandelion Salad says...
[…] the Supreme Court’s ruling last summer that the prisoners have habeas corpus rights, judges in the District Courts have, in 84 […]
...on July 27th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Obama And The Deadline For Closing Guantánamo: It’s Worse Than You Think « Dr Nasir Khan says...
[…] the Supreme Court’s ruling last summer that the prisoners have habeas corpus rights, judges in the District Courts have, in 84 […]
...on July 30th, 2009 at 9:28 am
As Judge Orders Release Of Tortured Guantánamo Prisoner, Government Refuses To Concede Defeat by Andy Worthington « Dandelion Salad says...
[…] 20, 2009, Jawad’s habeas corpus petition — one of hundreds allowed to proceed after a momentous Supreme Court ruling last June — reached a US District Court around the same time, accompanied by an even more […]
...on August 1st, 2009 at 4:14 am
How Judge Huvelle Humiliated The Government In Guantánamo Case by Andy Worthington « Dandelion Salad says...
[…] So now, somebody ought to face the music and figure out how you can make a case. How can you do it? Boumediene [the Supreme Court ruling granting the prisoners habeas rights] says you have to make a case. […]
...on August 1st, 2009 at 4:27 am
Judge Orders Release From Guantánamo Of Kuwaiti Charity Worker by Andy Worthington « Dandelion Salad says...
[…] the Supreme Court ruled last June that the prisoners had constitutionally guaranteed habeas corpus rights, 33 cases have been ruled […]
...on August 4th, 2009 at 11:19 am
Guantánamo And The Courts (Part Two): Obama’s Shame by Andy Worthington « Dandelion Salad says...
[…] of The Guantánamo Files, examined the Bush administration’s record in the seven months after the Supreme Court’s ruling, in June 2008, that the prisoners had constitutionally guaranteed habeas corpus rights, and […]
...on August 12th, 2009 at 6:00 am
Bagram Isn’t The New Guantánamo, It’s The Old Guantánamo « freedetainees.org says...
[…] ruled that the habeas rights granted by the Supreme Court to the Guantánamo prisoners last June in Boumediene v. Bush also extended to the foreign prisoners in Bagram, because, as he explained succinctly, ‘the […]
...on August 16th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Arrogance And Torture: A History of Guantánamo by Andy Worthington « Dandelion Salad says...
[…] only finally addressed in June 2008, when, in a third significant decision regarding Guantánamo (Boumediene v. Bush), the Supreme Court ruled that the prisoners had constitutional habeas corpus rights. Six and a […]
...on August 22nd, 2009 at 6:13 am
No Escape From Guantánamo: The Latest Habeas Rulings by Andy Worthington « Dandelion Salad says...
[…] of hearsay and of feeble “mosaics” of intelligence (as mentioned above), but also because when the Supreme Court granted the prisoners constitutionally guaranteed habeas corpus rights in June 2008, the justices failed to […]
...on September 11th, 2009 at 3:23 am
Is Bagram Obama’s New Secret Prison? by Andy Worthington « Dandelion Salad says...
[…] which clung to the line taken by the Bush administration, Judge Bates ruled in April that Boumediene v. Bush — the Supreme Court ruling last June, which granted constitutionally guaranteed habeas corpus […]
...on September 16th, 2009 at 2:50 am
On Guantánamo, Lawmakers Reveal They Are Still Dick Cheney’s Pawns by Andy Worthington « Dandelion Salad says...
[…] June, the Supreme Court rose up again, this time granting the prisoners constitutionally guaranteed habeas corpus rights, and setting in motion a process of reviews that, to date, has led to District Court judges […]
...on October 7th, 2009 at 2:02 am
Lawyer Blasts “Congressional Depravity” On Guantánamo by Andy Worthington « Dandelion Salad says...
[…] were severely chastised by the Supreme Court in June 2008, when the nation’s senior judges restored the prisoners’ habeas corpus rights and ruled that the habeas-stripping aspects of the DTA and MCA had been unconstitutional, but as […]
...on October 9th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Obama wins 2009 Nobel Peace Prize + Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize: OK, He’s A Nice Guy, But … by Andy Worthington « Dandelion Salad says...
[…] Prize to be given to a man who, through the Justice Department, is appealing a ruling extending the habeas corpus rights granted by the Supreme Court to the prisoners at Guantánamo to foreign prisoners seized in other countries and “rendered” […]
...on October 9th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
New Book: The Guantánamo Lawyers – and a talk by Jonathan Hafetz by Andy Worthington « Dandelion Salad says...
[…] is the subject of three landmark Supreme Court decisions: Rasul v. Bush, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and Boumediene v. Bush, now a part of law school casebooks and curricula. It is the subject of numerous lower court […]
...on November 1st, 2009 at 5:42 am
Justice Department Pointlessly Gags Guantánamo Lawyer by Andy Worthington « Dandelion Salad says...
[…] we had been fighting to obtain literally for years was stayed by the judge despite the fact that the US Supreme Court held in June of 2008 that the men were entitled to swift hearings … So much for the Supreme Court! The president asked […]
...on November 22nd, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Justice Department Pointlessly Gags Guantánamo Lawyer « Norcaltruth says...
[…] we had been fighting to obtain literally for years was stayed by the judge despite the fact that the US Supreme Court held in June of 2008 that the men were entitled to swift hearings … So much for the Supreme Court! The president asked […]
...on November 22nd, 2009 at 10:50 pm
116 Guantánamo Prisoners Cleared For Release; 171 Still In Limbo by Andy Worthington « Dandelion Salad says...
[…] June 2008, when the Supreme Court granted the prisoners constitutionally guaranteed habeas corpus rights, District Court judges have been examining the government’s evidence and, in 31 of the 39 cases […]
...on December 8th, 2009 at 12:33 am
“Model Prisoner” at Guantánamo, Tortured in the “Dark Prison,” Loses Habeas Corpus Petition « freedetainees.org says...
[…] case in modern history and Guantánamo and the Supreme Court: What Happened? (both December 2007), The Supreme Court’s Guantánamo ruling: what does it mean? (June 2008), Guantánamo as Alice in Wonderland (Uighurs’ first court victory, June 2008), […]
...on December 16th, 2009 at 6:24 am
Serious Problems With Obama’s Plan To Move Guantánamo To Illinois by Andy Worthington « Dandelion Salad says...
[…] almost as an afterthought, was the following passage: “In addition, the Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush [in June 2008] that all detainees currently held at Guantánamo have the right to file petitions […]
...on December 22nd, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Happy 8th Birthday Gitmo: an interview with watchdog Andy Worthington « Pluto Press – Independent Progressive Publishing says...
[…] habeas petitions, and to bring their stories of torture and abuse to the world. That process was derailed by Congress for another four years (although the administration failed to keep the lawyers out), but no lawyer […]
...on January 19th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Dark Revelations in the Bagram Prisoner List « freedetainees.org says...
[…] writ of habeas corpus, granted to the prisoners at Guantánamo by the Supreme Court in June 2008 (in Boumediene v. Bush), extended to foreign prisoners seized in other countries and rendered to Bagram, because […]
...on January 20th, 2010 at 3:42 am
Rubbing Salt in Guantanamo’s Wounds: Task Force Announces Indefinite Detentions | themcglynn.com/theliberal.net says...
[…] This is a welcome acknowledgment, as the courts’ role, mandated by an enormously significant Supreme Court ruling in June 2008, has been noticeably sidelined by the administration, even though, in the last 16 […]
...on January 23rd, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Andy Worthington: Swiss Take Two Guantanamo Uighurs, Solve Obama’s Problem says...
[…] to wait until October 2008, when Judge Ricardo Urbina, a U.S. District Court judge, ruled on their long-delayed habeas corpus petitions, and ordered their release into the United States, because no other country had been found that […]
...on February 4th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Bagram: Graveyard of the Geneva Conventions « Dandelion Salad says...
[…] the one-sided review process convened in 2004-05, which the Supreme Court found inadequate in Boumediene v. Bush, the June 2008 ruling granting the prisoners constitutionally guaranteed habeas corpus […]
...on February 6th, 2010 at 1:11 am
LT Saloon | Rubbing Salt in Guantanamo’s Wounds: Task Force Announces Indefinite Detentions says...
[…] This is a welcome acknowledgment, as the courts’ role, mandated by an enormously significant Supreme Court ruling in June 2008, has been noticeably sidelined by the administration, even though, in the last 16 […]
...on February 8th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Update on Guantanamo Detainees’ Habeas Corpus Challenges - National Security Law Brief says...
[…] an update on the effects of a U.S. Supreme Court 2008 ruling, which allowed Guantanamo detainees ”the right to challenge their […]
...on February 13th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Guantánamo: Exposing Torture, Misconceptions and Government Incompetence | The Ruthless Truth blog says...
[…] in US courts on the habeas corpus petitions of the prisoners held at Guantánamo (as authorized by a significant Supreme Court ruling in June 2008), I’m devoting most of my work this week to articles covering the 47 cases decided […]
...on April 20th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Col. Morris Davis Criticizes Obama on Guantánamo by Andy Worthington « Dandelion Salad says...
[…] responsible for the Supreme Court affording detainees the constitutional right of habeas corpus in the Boumediene decision [in June 2008]. We can’t afford to screw this up […]
...on April 28th, 2010 at 9:34 am
Fahad Hashmi And Terrorist Hysteria In US Courts says...
[…] Geneva Conventions, but even in dealing with the cases of the men in Guantánamo, who have securedthree Supreme Court victories in their favor, judges are not empowered to order the release of prisoners who win their habeas […]
...on April 30th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
The Black Hole of Bagram – Dark Politricks says...
[…] that the habeas rights granted by the Supreme Court to the Guantánamo prisoners in June 2008, in Boumediene v. Bush, also extended to foreign prisoners seized in other countries and rendered to Bagram, because, as […]
...on May 28th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
What is Obama Doing at Bagram? (Part Two): Executive Detention, Rendition, Review Boards, Released Prisoners and Trials « Dandelion Salad says...
[…] Judge Bates recognized, the habeas rights granted to the Guantánamo prisoners by the Supreme Court in June 2008 also extended to foreign prisoners rendered to Bagram because “the detainees […]
...on June 4th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
Does Obama Really Know or Care About Who Is at Guantánamo? « Dandelion Salad says...
[…] and in October 2008 they had been the first men to win their habeas corpus petitions, after the Supreme Court granted the Guantánamo prisoners constitutionally guaranteed habeas rights three months […]
...on June 12th, 2010 at 9:07 am
Gonzalo Gato Villegas » Blog Archive » ¿Sabe realmente Obama, le preocupa acaso, quién sigue en Guantánamo? says...
[…] 2008, fueron los primeros hombres en conseguir sus peticiones de habeas corpus después de que el Tribunal Supremo dictaminara tres meses antes que los prisioneros de Guantánamo tenían constitucionalmente derecho […]
...on June 17th, 2010 at 11:12 am
By One Vote, US Court OKs Torture and “Extraordinary Rendition” « Dandelion Salad says...
[…] as I also explained: [T]he judges drew on Boumediene [v. Bush, the 2008 ruling granting the Guantánamo prisoners constitutionally guaranteed habeas […]
...on September 15th, 2010 at 11:09 pm
Guantánamo Prisoner Dies After Being Held for Nine Years Without Charge or Trial | The Muslim Justice Initiative says...
[…] of a judicial ruling, despite the fact that he, along with all the Guantánamo prisoners, had been granted habeas corpus rights by the US Supreme Court two years and eight months […]
...on February 6th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
Habeas Hell: How The Great Writ Was Gutted At Guantánamo « Eurasia Review says...
[…] until June 2008, in Boumediene v. Bush (PDF), when, revisiting the prisoners’ circumstances, the Supreme Court ruled that the habeas-stripping provisions in the DTA and the MCA were unconstitutional, and granted the […]
...on February 25th, 2011 at 1:47 pm
How The US Supreme Court Gave Up On Guantánamo – OpEd « Eurasia Review says...
[…] the judicial front, the Supreme Court has ducked Guantánamo since its last major intervention, in Boumediene v. Bush, in June 2008, when the justices ruled that the prisoners had constitutionally guaranteed habeas […]
...on April 13th, 2011 at 4:12 pm
Guantánamo And The Death Of Habeas Corpus - OpEd says...
[…] 'wpp-261'; var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};Last month, the third anniversary of Boumediene v. Bush (on June 12) passed without mention. This was a great shame, not only because it was a powerful […]
...on July 29th, 2011 at 6:54 am
The Black Hole of Guantánamo: The Sad Story of Ravil Mingazov « freedetainees.org says...
[…] He remains in Guantánamo more than three years after the US Supreme Court issued its opinion in Boumediene v. Bush extending the writ of habeas corpus to Guantánamo detainees and giving the lower courts great […]
...on September 21st, 2011 at 2:02 am
Kidnapping Victims Released | Lew Rockwell says...
[…] It was not until June this year, when the Supreme Court revisited the prisoners' rights, and ruled that their habeas rights were constitutional, that the cases of the Bosnian Algerians – and […]
...on December 9th, 2011 at 3:02 am
A Tired Obsession with Military Detention Plagues American Politics « Piazza della Carina says...
[…] Act of 2006 (PDF), and the Supreme Court had to revisit the prisoners’ cases in June 2008, in Boumediene v. Bush, reiterating that they had habeas corpus rights, and that those rights were constitutionally […]
...on January 8th, 2012 at 2:22 pm
A Tired Obsession with Military Detention Plagues American Politics « Dandelion Salad says...
[…] Act of 2006 (PDF), and the Supreme Court had to revisit the prisoners’ cases in June 2008, in Boumediene v. Bush, reiterating that they had habeas corpus rights, and that those rights were constitutionally […]
...on January 9th, 2012 at 4:09 am
As Judges Kill Off Habeas Corpus For Guantánamo Prisoners, Will Supreme Court Act? says...
[…] June 2008 that the Supreme Court once more took the opportunity to reassert its authority (in Boumediene v. Bush), arguing that the habeas-stripping provisions of the DTA and MCA were unconstitutional, and […]
...on April 6th, 2012 at 3:57 am
Meet the Seven Guantánamo Prisoners Whose Appeals Were Turned Down by the Supreme Court | Cii Broadcasting says...
[…] successful petitions overturned on appeal. The ruling came the day before the 4th anniversary of Boumediene v. Bush, the 2008 case in which the Supreme Court granted the prisoners constitutionally guaranteed habeas […]
...on June 18th, 2012 at 6:50 am
Meet the Seven Guantánamo Prisoners Whose Appeals Were Turned Down by the Supreme Court - World Observer Online says...
[…] successful petitions overturned on appeal. The ruling came the day before the 4th anniversary of Boumediene v. Bush, the 2008 case in which the Supreme Court granted the prisoners constitutionally guaranteed habeas […]
...on July 5th, 2012 at 2:49 pm
freedetainees.org – Clive Stafford Smith’s Support For Independent Medical Evaluation For Shaker Aamer In Guantánamo says...
[…] of his habeas corpus petition, even though the Supreme Court recognized over five years ago, in Boumediene v. Bush, in June 2008, that the prisoners at Guantánamo have constitutionally guaranteed habeas corpus […]
...on October 7th, 2013 at 11:50 pm
The Bagram Detainees – Pakistanis Out Of Place | SEASON OF THE FIERY ROSE:::::::: LAW AND JUSTICE IN PAKISTAN says...
[…] the Supreme Court granted habeas corpus rights to the Guantánamo prisoners in June 2004, and again in June 2008, after Congress had tried to remove these rights in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the […]
...on October 16th, 2013 at 9:08 am
Update on Guantanamo Detainees’ Habeas Corpus Challenges | National Security Law Brief says...
[…] an update on the effects of a U.S. Supreme Court 2008 ruling, which allowed Guantanamo detainees “the right to challenge their confinement,” federal […]
...on October 23rd, 2013 at 9:52 am
Swiss Take Two Guantánamo Uighurs, Save Obama from Having to Do the Right Thing | Dandelion Salad says...
[…] to wait until October 2008, when Judge Ricardo Urbina, a US District Court judge, ruled on their long-delayed habeas corpus petitions, and ordered their release into the United States, because no other country had been found that […]
...on November 10th, 2013 at 3:35 am
Cleaning Up the Guantanamo Mess: Worthington Provides Some Valuable Details | The Rag Blog says...
[…] the Supreme Court and Congress to grant them their wish. Since the justices of the Supreme Court decisively ended this struggle last June, by ruling that Congress had acted unconstitutionally when it stripped the prisoners of […]
...on August 12th, 2014 at 11:29 pm
The Black Hole of Guantánamo by Andy Worthington | Dandelion Salad says...
[…] June 2008, the Supreme Court added a second layer of review, of a more substantial nature, when it gave the prisoners constitutionally guaranteed habeas corpus rights; in other words, the right to challenge the basis of their detention in a US court. This right had […]
...on October 18th, 2014 at 2:02 am
Finding New Homes For 44 Cleared Guantánamo Prisoners by Andy Worthington | Dandelion Salad says...
[…] Courts, as a result of the habeas corpus petitions that were authorized by the Supreme Court in an extraordinarily important ruling in June 2008. 13 of these men are Uighurs — Muslims from China’s oppressed Xinjiang province, whose release […]
...on November 16th, 2014 at 1:01 am
Terrorism, Habeas Corpus, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals | Official Website of James Landrith says...
[…] courts to establish who can be detained at Guantánamo, and on what basis, following the Supreme Court’s ruling, in June 2008, that the Guantánamo prisoners have constitutionally guaranteed habeas corpus […]
...on September 2nd, 2015 at 4:02 am
Justice At Last? Guantánamo Uighurs Ask Supreme Court For Release Into US by Andy Worthington – Dandelion Salad says...
[…] who were found to be innocent by a court, when the nation’s most important judges granted them constitutionally guaranteed habeas corpus rights in June 2008, in Boumediene v. […]
...on September 23rd, 2020 at 4:43 pm
Finding New Homes For 44 Cleared Guantánamo Prisoners by Andy Worthington – Dandelion Salad says...
[…] Courts, as a result of the habeas corpus petitions that were authorized by the Supreme Court in an extraordinarily important ruling in June 2008. 13 of these men are Uighurs — Muslims from China’s oppressed Xinjiang province, whose release […]
...on May 21st, 2021 at 12:55 am
Guantánamo And The Courts (Part Three): Obama’s Continuing Shame by Andy Worthington – Dandelion Salad says...
[…] release via the US courts, Andy Worthington, author of The Guantánamo Files, looked at how, after the Supreme Court’s ruling, in June 2008, that the prisoners had constitutionally guaranteed habeas corpus rights, the Bush […]
...on May 21st, 2021 at 4:51 pm
Why Did It Take So Long To Order The Release From Guantánamo Of An Al-Qaeda Torture Victim? by Andy Worthington – Dandelion Salad says...
[…] claims, judges in the District Courts, empowered to review the prisoners’ cases after a Supreme Court ruling last June confirmed that they had habeas corpus rights (the right to ask a judge why they are being held), […]
...on May 21st, 2021 at 6:27 pm