BOUMEDIENE V. BUSH Name: Institute: Issue Do the procedures prescribed by Congress in the Detainee Treatment Act provide protection that the habeas corpus guarantees? Are the detainees of Guantanamo Bay entitled to the protection and can the detainees challenge the competence of the judicial review provisions of the Military Commission Act before they have sought to invoke that review?…
Download file to see previous pages...
On June 12, 2002, it was ruled by the United States Supreme Court that protection of the United States Constitution was to be provided to the Guantanamo detainees. On November 20 2008, the court ruled that to allow enemy competency to be taken lightly would be inconsistent with the Court’s obligation: the court will grant their petitions and order their release. It was a unique case, and if there were any others, they would be factually alike. Nobody should be got into a false sense and that all of the cases would look like that one. Analysis The Boumediene v. Bush was made in the United States in a civilian court due to Lakhdar Boumedeine at the time he was held captive by the United States in Cuba, at the Guantanamo Bay detention camps. The habeas petition Al Odah v. United States was merged with the case and challenged the authenticity of the detention of Boumedeine at the military base of the United States Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, together with the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The Supreme Court heard the legal arguments on the combined case on December 5th 2007. Lakhdar Boumediene in early January 2002 was held in custody in the United States Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. ...
The first habeas case was brought in February 2002 by the Center for Constitutional Rights and counsel on behalf of detainees held at Guantanamo. It had been argued initially by the Bush Administration that the detainees were in a territory with no right of accessing the federal courts. Therefore, they could not challenge whether they had been detained lawfully. Later on, Congress tried to throw out the decision with a series of laws after the United States Supreme Court ruled that the persons in habeas cases could go forward under the federal habeas statute. The laws brought out by congress included the Detainee Treatment Act (2005) and the Military Commissions Act 2006 that made the federal laws to get rid of habeas jurisdiction for any foreigner held in the U.S custody. Amendments made a much more narrowed survey proceeding in the Court of Appeals as a substitute for habeas review for the Columbia District. This was for individuals to test the military’s categorization of them as the enemy combatants. The Center for Constitutional Rights argued that the DTA process fell short of habeas and could not be corrected due to violations that occurred during the CSRT at Guantanamo (Transnational Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), 2007). Taking the extraterritorial application of the constitution to Guantanamo in consideration, the Court adopted a practical approach that it has applied in first cases. Since Guantanamo was outside the sovereign territory of the United States, the constitution did not apply and thus the Court strongly criticized the President and the Congress’ attempt to declare that. In the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision which stated that
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
Cite this document
(“Boumediene v. Bush Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words”, n.d.)
Retrieved de https://studentshare.org/history/1447229-boumediene-v-bush
(Boumediene V. Bush Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 Words)
“Boumediene V. Bush Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 Words”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/history/1447229-boumediene-v-bush.
This process is sometimes accompanied by a ‘pat down’ search of the outer clothing or apparel of the suspect, done with a view to ensure that the person is unarmed. While this mechanism is common place in today’s high risk world, its validity juxtaposed to the Fourth Amendment was examined by the Hon’ble United States Supreme Court in the case of Terry v.
The act of the police officer is done upon his or her suspicion that a crime may be undertaken because of a sense or reasonable belief that the person in question may be armed and presently dangerous. This was the decision that the courts reached when they read the facts of the case as per the petition of John W. Terry, who was stopped and searched based upon a police officer's observation and conclusion that Terry seemed to be casing a store for a potential robbery.
The Bowman v. Fel’s case involved money laundering disclosure requirements and litigation-related professional privilege. These requirements are outlined in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) that was fully enforced on the 1st of March 2004.
The fall of the hammer in a traditional auction is complete when the auctioneer announces its completion by the fall of the hammer or in other customary manner-and until any such announcement is made any bidder may retract his or her bid. The equivalent of the fall of the hammer in an eBay auction is the automatic close of bidding at a fixed time and the generation of an eBay advice headed "won" appear to have been accepted by the parties to an eBay auction.
According to the author, the Terry V Ohio case took place when a police officer stopped and checked three men because of their suspicious behavior. Occurring on October 31st 1963 when an experienced and old member of the Cleveland Police Department, Martin Macfadden, went patrolling downtown and saw two individuals acting suspiciously.
Defendants of the case included UniFirst Corporation of Interstate Uniform Services, W.R. Grace & Co. of the Cryovac Plant, and Beatrice Foods, Inc. who owned the John Riley Tannery (Gerrard and Foster 644).
Plaintiffs argued that
takes into consideration state search and seizure practices at the time of the Fourth Amendment’s enactment and current state practices.In this regard when interpreting the Fourth Amendment,the court in defining the scope of Federal protection both trusts and mistrusts modern
The issue in contention is whether Dennis Laurion comments in a website called rate your doctor was genuine in relation to Dr. Mckee comments about the defendant's father. When Dr Mckee goes to a private room to review Laurion's father following a discharge from Intensive Care Unit (ICU), he allegedly made three statements.
These requirements include an offer, an acceptance, consideration and intention for the parties to be legally bound or form an agreement enforceable by the law (Graw B & Graw S, 2008). In this case, the issue
6 Pages(1500 words)Case Study
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Case Study on topic Boumediene v. Bush Case Study for FREE!