Issue

(General)  above all habeas corpus petitions filed by citizens who are not of American nationality and detainees at Guantanamo Bay, was the military commission’s act of 2006 impeding federal jurisdiction?

(Specific)  does the MCA violate federal courts jurisdiction to consider petitioners habeas applications which states that petitioners are not permitted to habeas and the suspension clause of the constitution indicating habeas cannot be suspended except in times of rebellion or invasion?

(Sub-issue)  do aliens referred to enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo have the rights to habeas corpus and if they have the constitutional privilege and if they have the legal opportunity of habeas corpus?

(Sub-issue)  do the convicts at Guantanamo have the constitutional rights to the protection of the fifth amendment and the right not to be underprivileged without the right procedure of the law?

(Sub-issue) Are the detainees entitled to challenge MCA statutory provisions of before petitioning of the judicial review? And if so does the MCA construct a suitable substitute preparation for habeas corpus?

Rule

The D.C court of appeals finalized that jurisdiction should consider petitioners habeas applications, that is petitioners are not entitled to habeas or the protections of the suspension clause which states; the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion.

The court does not accept the governments premise that de jure sovereignty is the touchstone of habeas jurisdiction.

Supreme Court appeals that the Guantanamo detainees were entitled to submit habeas corpus petitions to the federal judges to determine if the government had sufficient evidence to justify their prolonged detention without charge.

Analysis

Boumediene v. bush develops from the captured and detained individuals fighting against the United States after which a combatant status review was established to determine if the arrested at the naval station at Guantanamo Bay were terrorists. The petitioners then filed a court order of habeas corpus in the district court which ordered their cases removed due to lack of jurisdiction because Guantanamo is outside the United States territory. However, the court reversed the writ placing the extension of their claims. For the habeas writ, the court conducting collateral proceeding must have the ability to correct any errors and consider relevant evidence that was not introduced during earlier proceedings.

Petitioners were permitted to seek the writ or to invoke the suspension clause protection since they had the constitutional privileged of habeas corpus. The summons may be suspended only when public safety requires it in times of rebellion or invasion.

Government proclaims that the Guantanamo Bay is more closely analogous to Scotland and Hanover, where the writ did not run and if the ordinary law courts in the area lacked authority to issue out the writ. However, at Guantanamo, the suspension clause has the full effect and according to the government’s argument is that the suspension clause grants petitioners no rights since the United States do not claim any sovereignty over the naval station.

The court also engaged territorial incorporations or state where the constitution applies in full destined for statehood but only grouped with incorporated territories.

The DTA review process lacks a substitute for habeas offering petitioners a burden establishing it. The absence of provisions which the DTA is limited off allows the petitioners to challenge the president’s authorities.

Conclusion

The federal courts, in the end, should refrain an enemy combatant’s habeas petition from entertaining until after the CSRT has had a chance to overlook over the status. The suspension clause has the full effect at Guantanamo Bay. The procedures aligned in the detainee treatment act were not sufficient for habeas corpus as detainees were not permitted to proceed with exculpatory evidence and were not in the combatant status review proceedings. The review procedures in the federal court before any proceedings were not needed having the detainees to exhaust the review procedures with their habeas activities given already but in delay.

References

Liam, g. (2019). {{meta.pageTitle}}. [online] {{meta.siteName}}. Available at: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/06-1195 [Accessed 26 Mar. 2019].

Boumediene v. Bush. (n.d). Oyez. Retrieved March 26, 2019, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/06-1195

Deniston, Lyle. “Boumediene V Bush – Cases | Laws.Com.” Cases.Laws.Com, 2019, https://cases.laws.com/boumediene-v-bush.

1. Neumann, ‘Extraterritorial rights and constitutional methodology after Rasul v. Bush’, 2005 University of Pennsylvania Law Review, p. 2077

Gannet, Luka. “Boumediene V. Bush | the Federalist Society.” Fedsoc.Org, 2019, https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/boumediene-v-bush.