Boumediene V. Bush: an Unconstitutional Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus

Kevin C March 26, 2013 US History I Honors Boumediene v. Bush The united States is a free artless that was forged out of the tyrannical English Monarchy. doubting Thomas Jefferson wrote that All men argon created equal, that they atomic number 18 endowed by their origin with certain unalienable well(p)s (Declaration of Independence). Those objurgates ar represented in the United States theme which is the foundation which strongly upholds American ideals and beliefs.Although the Constitution does non always pass to foreigners, Boumediene and the other political political detainees at Guantanamo Bay deserve habeas star compensates beca function it is a complete article of belief that applies to every champion, regardless of state or nationality. The final decision that was do by the US Supreme Court was the correct one because they realize that Guantanamo is under US jurisdiction, the DTA provides an inadequate substitution to habeas principal sum, and that MCA does vi olate the prisonbreak clause of the Constitution. In 2008, Boumediene, a captive at Guantanamo Bay had his habeas head teacher rights denied by the D.C. District Court and the Appellate Court based on bills passed by Congress. The origination fathers specific bothy state in Article 1, Section 9 that congress shall not pass any bill that restricts habeas corpus rights. The detainees at Guantanamo Bay live in cells for twenty-three hours of the day. They are in ceaseless fear of being abused and tortured, mentally and physically by the guards and some bemuse been at the naval base for everywhere five years. Among all the detainees, none have been given access to any type of lawcourt board to hear what their being convicted of.The biggest problem is that all of them have been denied habeas corpus rights which effectively allows the Executive Branch of the US g overnment to hold them indefinitely. The United States has adopted some(prenominal) of Englands traditions. One of whi ch are habeas corpus rights derived from the Magna Carta gestural in 1215. However, when the exemplar reached the District Court, the Bush administration plead their case stating that Guantanamo Bay was not on Sovereign US soil, therefore, the protection of habeas corpus could not be allow to the etainees. However, looking back in autobiography to the English, they were in a similar predicament. India was officially a go bad of the British Empire in 1858, however, the British had occupied the country since the 1700s with a heavy military presence. Despite India not becoming an official part of the British Empire, the Writ of Habeas Corpus was being incorporated into their government since the cross of the nineteenth century. The Indian government were allowed to hear cases of habeas corpus since 1773.But, it was not until 1775 when it was real first used by chief justice, Sir Elijah Impey to question his detention by Governor-General Warren Hastings at the Calcutta Supreme Cou rt (A. G Noorani). The British allowed Indian prisoners the right of habeas corpus even though they did not have sovereignty of the country. This example in history sets precedent that if a country occupies a grime with a heavy military presence, wherefore the right of habeas corpus shall be extended as well. The Supreme Court agrees because they voted in a 6-3 majority in the case, Rasul v.Bush. Supreme Court Justice Stevens issued his hold opinion which utter that the detainees have never been afforded access to any tribunal, often less charged with and convicted of wrongdoingthey have been imprisoned in territory over which the United States exercise exclusive jurisdiction and control (Stevens, tactual sensation of the Court, 542 U. S. ). The Supreme Court ultimately decided that since the US government keep a strong military presence and holds an indefinite lease over the area, it therefore had complete jurisdiction and control over the base in Cuba.Because the US governm ent had complete jurisdiction over the base, ultimate sovereignty, which is granted to Cuba, holds no weight in the argument. This essentially makes Guantanamo Bay part of the US and not Cuba, which means Sovereign US laws should apply there, the same as it would to any US State or territory. The respondents stated to the Appeals Court that detainees are given a fair alternative to habeas corpus rights. However, these alternatives do not protect the detainee as fully as habeas corpus would.The respondents stated that the Combat Status Review Tribunals (CSRT), which were established by the Defense Department, were establish into place for the sole purpose of hearing the cases of the detainees. However, there are many flaws in having such a system determine the legality of ones detention. The Supreme Court recognizes that the CSRT process for hearing cases puts many constraints upon the detainees ability to rebut the factual basis for the Governments assertion that he is an enemy co mbatant (Boumediene v. Bush, 476F. 3d981).Some flaws the court points out is that the CSRT assumes that the detainees are guilty before the trial has even started and it is all up to the detainee to prove that they are in fact, not enemy combatants. This goes against the typical US court proceedings when all suspects are presumed innocent until proven otherwise. The influence shown by the members of the CSRT puts the detainees at a disadvantage. Furthermore, while many of the detainees have a limited knowledge of English, they are not given the specifics as to what crimes they are being charged with because the information may be classified.Additionally, with no textbookual evidence, the detainees often go into the CSRT board empty handed and without legal representation. non only do the proceedings of the CSRT seem unfair, it also seems to be intentional to intentionally make it difficult for detainees to secure their freedom. Coming back to the respondents authoritative claim , if the CSRT is essentially a substitute for habeas corpus, why not just use habeas corpus? Habeas corpus has been around since 1215 and has survived in the US Government for over 300 years for a movement it is an effective way for population to question the legality of their detention by the government.The Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006 was an amendment to the detainee Treatment Act (DTA) which would have disallowed Federal Courts to hear writs of habeas corpus from the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The US Supreme Court decided that because the DTA was an inadequate substitution for habeas corpus, then(prenominal) the MCA cannot strip away Federal courts jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus cases. The reason behind this is that it would then be an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus because it violates the Suspension article.At the Appellate Court, the respondents (Bush) stated that the Suspension Clause is an individual right granted only to US citiz ens. However, while looking at the text of the Suspension Clause in context, it states The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the Public gum elastic may require it (US Constitution, art 1, sec 9). The Supreme Court counters the respondents argument by stating that the Suspension Clause is meant to be a limitation to Congresses powers and not something that applies to individuals.Nevertheless, nowhere in that phrase do the lecture individual or citizen ever show up. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the Suspension Clause only applies to US citizens and that it is not a universal right to anyone being held under US jurisdiction. Additionally, the founding fathers placed the Suspension Clause in Article 1, Section 9 in the Constitution. This is important because if the founding fathers specifically intended to apply the Suspension Clause to US citizens only, then they would have placed it in the Bill of Righ ts which are specifically mute for the people to protect them against the government.Furthermore, the rest of the clauses in Article 1, Section 9 specifically state what types of activities that the Legislative Branch cannot do. Hence, the Suspension Clause, because of its placement, was intended to be a limitation upon the abuse of power by the Legislative Branch. Lastly, the principle of separation of powers came from the idea that each branch would be able to barricade one another. The MCA effectively stops the Judiciary Branch to do its romp therefore is also unconstitutional.