Boumediene V. Guantanamo Bay Court Cases

II. Statement of the Case In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks in 2001, the United States commenced a worldwide “War on Terror.” During this campaign, President Bush exercised his authority to allow captives to be tried before military commissions, rather than civilian courts. Captives were held at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, which has mixed jurisdiction between Cuba and the U.S. While Cuba maintains de jure sovereignty, the U.S. has an indefinite lease on the land. According to the government, this means that detainees were neither subject to American laws nor protection under the U.S. Constitution. In 2002, six Algerian natives, including the petitioner Lakhadar Boumediene, lived as naturalized citizens in Bosnia until they were

First, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 does not explicitly and clearly remove federal jurisdiction over the habeas petitions filed by detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Even if the Military Commissions Act does remove jurisdiction, the court should still rule on this case because the alternative habeas review process is insufficient, as it does not afford a petitioner any of the following fundamental elements of habeas review: “an opportunity to present evidence demonstrating the unlawfulness of detention; a neutral and plenary review of all the evidence; a court empowered to order release; speedy resolution of claims; and full representation by counsel.” Furthermore, the court does have jurisdiction, assuming no removal of jurisdiction, because the military base is effectively part of the United States. Secondly, the petitioners have rights under the Suspension Clause because of the protections of the writ included in its original conception in 1789. Next, the petitioners’ rights under the Suspension Clause are not maintained by the MCA and therefore the MCA is unconstitutional. The judicial review under the MCA and DTA is an inadequate substitute for the right to habeas corpus afforded to the detainees. Furthermore, the Military Commissions Act defines a “military combatant” in an unjustifiably broad sense. The definition is broader than any generally accepted law of war principle. As an aside, a ruling in favor of the respondents will set a dangerous precedent that allows for the executive and legislative branches to work in tandem, unhindered by the Law. Ultimately, the petitioners have been deprived of fundamental Fifth Amendment rights and their right to habeas has been unlawfully suspended. Therefore, the Court should reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision and immediately remand the case for habeas relief, either requiring the