Transcript habeas corpus

 A writ of habeas corpus is a legal request directed to a
detaining authority
 It demands that a prisoner be taken before a court, and
that the detaining authority must show legitimate
legal reason for detention
 The court will determine if the detention is lawful
 If not lawful, the detainee must be released from
custody.
 Yaser Hamdi, an American citizen, was arrested by the
United States military in Afghanistan. He was accused
of fighting for the Taliban against the U.S., and
declared an "enemy combatant."
 Hamdi’s attorney argued that the government had
violated his Fifth Amendment right to Due Process by
holding him indefinitely and not giving him access to
an attorney or a trial.
 The government argued that it has the right, during
wartime, to declare people who fight against the
United States as "enemy combatants" and thus restrict
their access to the court system.
 Issue: Did the government violate Hamdi's Fifth
Amendment right to Due Process by holding him
indefinitely, without access to an attorney, based solely
on an Executive Branch declaration that he was an
"enemy combatant" who fought against the U.S.?
 Holding: Although Congress authorized Hamdi's
detention, Fifth Amendment due process rights give a
citizen held in the United States as an enemy
combatant the right to contest that detention before a
neutral decision maker.
 British and Australian citizens were captured by the American
military in Pakistan or Afghanistan during the United States'
War on Terror. The four men were transported to the American
military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
 Their families filed suit in federal district court seeking a writ of
habeas corpus . They claimed that the government's decision to
deny the men access to attorneys and to hold them indefinitely
without access to a court violated 5th Amendment Due Process.
 The government claimed that federal courts had no jurisdiction
to hear the case because the prisoners were not American
citizens and were being held in territory over which the United
States did not have sovereignty (Guantanamo Bay, Cuba).
 Issue: Do U.S. courts have jurisdiction to consider
legal appeals filed on behalf of foreign citizens held by
the U.S. military in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?
 Holding: Yes. The amount of control exercised by the
U. S. over the Guantanamo Bay base was sufficient to
trigger the application of habeas corpus rights because
the United States exercised "complete jurisdiction and
control" over the base. Also, the right to habeas corpus
is not dependent on U.S. citizenship status. The
detainees were allowed to challenge their detention.
 Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's former chauffeur,
was captured by Afghani forces and detained at Guantanamo
Bay. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal
district court to challenge his detention. Before the district court
ruled on the petition, he received a hearing from a military
tribunal, which designated him an enemy combatant.
 A few months later, the district court granted Hamdan's habeas
petition, ruling that he must first be given a hearing to
determine whether he was a prisoner of war under the Geneva
Convention before he could be tried by a military commission.
The Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
reversed the decision, however, finding that the Geneva
Convention could not be enforced in federal court and that the
establishment of military tribunals had been authorized by
Congress and was therefore not unconstitutional.
 Issue: May the rights protected by the Geneva Convention be
enforced in federal court through habeas corpus petitions? Was
the military commission established to try Hamdan and others
for alleged war crimes in the War on Terror authorized by the
Congress or the inherent powers of the President?
 Holding: Yes and no. Neither an act of Congress nor the
inherent powers of the Executive laid out in the Constitution
expressly authorized the sort of military commission at issue in
this case. Absent that express authorization, the commission had
to comply with the ordinary laws of the United States and the
laws of war. The Geneva Convention, as a part of the ordinary
laws of war, could therefore be enforced by the Supreme Court,
along with the statutory Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Hamdan's exclusion from certain parts of his trial deemed
classified by the military commission violated both of these, and
the trial was therefore illegal.
 Following the Hamdan decision, Congress enacted
new legislation to restore military tribunals
 The MCA had the following impact:
 Authorized terror prosecutions before military
commissions
 Eliminated federal courts' jurisdiction to hear habeas
applications from detainees who have been designated
as enemy combatants
 Provided the president with power to interpret
international standards for prisoner treatment
 In 2002 Lakhdar Boumediene and five other Algerian
natives were seized by Bosnian police when U.S.
intelligence officers suspected their involvement in a plot
to attack the U.S. embassy there. They were classified as
enemy combatants in the War on Terror and detained at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Boumediene filed a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus, alleging violations of the U.S.
Constitution.
 The detainees argued that the MCA did not apply to their
petitions, and that if it did, it was unconstitutional under
the Suspension Clause. The Suspension Clause reads: "The
Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be
suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion
the public Safety may require it."
 The D.C. Circuit ruled in favor of the government,
concluding that the MCA applied to "all cases, without
exception" that pertain to aspects of detention. One of
the purposes of the MCA, according to the Circuit
Court, was to overrule the Supreme Court's opinion in
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.
 The Supreme Court granted certiorari after initially
denying a review three months earlier.
 Issues: Does the Military Commissions Act of 2006
prohibit jurisdiction by federal courts over habeas petitions
by foreign citizens detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?
 Is the Military Commissions Act a violation of the
Suspension Clause?
 Are the detainees at Guantanamo Bay entitled to the
protection of the Fifth Amendment Due Process rights?
 Holding: Yes, to each of these questions. The MCA
operates as an unconstitutional suspension of the habeas
writ. The detainees were not barred from seeking habeas or
invoking the Suspension Clause merely because they had
been designated as enemy combatants or held at
Guantanamo Bay.