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

'Kevin C March 26, 2013 US History I Honors Boumediene v. Bush The get together States is a free country that was forged out of the authoritative English Monarchy. Thomas Jefferson wrote that â€Å"All men argon created equal, that they be endowed by their Creator with original unalienable indemnify-hand(a)s” (Declaration of Independence). Those rights argon represented in the United States g incessantlyy con dryratening body which is the foundation which strongly up find outs American ideals and beliefs.Although the Constitution does non always apply to foreigners, Boumediene and the other political detainees at Guantanamo bespeak deserve habeas star rights because it is a natural teaching that applies to everyone, regardless of state or nationality. The concluding decision that was made by the US authoritative judiciary was the correct one because they realized that Guantanamo is infra US jurisdiction, the DTA provides an inadequate substitution to habeas d ealer, and that MCA does violate the rupture clause of the Constitution. In 2008, Boumediene, a captive at Guantanamo Bay had his habeas head teacher rights denied by the D.C. District motor inn and the appellant judicial system based on bills chaired by Congress. The innovation fathers specific ally state in vocalise 1, arm 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 constant fear of world abused and tortured, mentally and physically by the guards and many another(prenominal) present been at the naval base for over five years. Among all the detainees, none have been given access to any type of tribunal board to run across what their cosmos convicted of.The biggest problem is that all of them have been denied habeas corpus rights which efficaciously allows the Executive section of the US organization to hold them indefinitely. The United Sta tes has adopted many of England’s traditions. one of which are habeas corpus rights derived from the Magna Carta signed in 1215. However, when the field reached the District Court, the Bush administration plead their flake stating that Guantanamo Bay was not on Sovereign US soil, thusly, the protection of habeas corpus could not be give to the etainees. However, spirit back in history to the English, they were in a similar predicament. India was officially a post of the British Empire in 1858, however, the British had active the country since the 1700’s with a heavy armed forces social movement. Despite India not becoming an official subdivision of the British Empire, the Writ of Habeas Corpus was being incorporate into their governance since the dawn 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 actually head start used by chief justice, Sir Elijah Impey to qu estion his keep by Governor-General Warren Hastings at the Calcutta compulsory Court (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 actor that if a country occupies a territory with a heavy military presence, then the right of habeas corpus shall be extended as well. The imperious Court agrees because they voted in a 6-3 majority in the case, Rasul v.Bush. imperative Court Justice Stevens issued his concurring opinion which give tongue to that the detainees â€Å"have never been afforded access to any tribunal, much(prenominal) less charged with and convicted of wrongdoing…they have been engrossed in territory over which the United States instance exclusive jurisdiction and control” (Stevens, Opinion of the Court, 542 U. S. ). The ultimate Court ultimately decided that since the US government maintained a strong military presence and holds an indefinite lease over the area, it therefore had perform jurisdiction and control over the base in Cuba.Because the US government had complete jurisdiction over the base, ultimate sovereignty, which is granted to Cuba, holds no weight in the argumentation. This essentially makes Guantanamo Bay part of the US and not Cuba, which means Sovereign US laws should apply there, the akin 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 study Tribunals (CSRT), which were established by the Defense Department, were put into place for the sole purpose of hearing the cases of the detainees. However, there are many flaws in having such a organization determine the integrity of one’s detention. The Supreme Court recognizes that the CSRT process for hearing cases puts many â€Å"constraints upon the detainee’s ability to rebut the factual derriere for the government’s assertion that he is an antagonist combatant” (Boumediene v. Bush, 476F. 3d981).Some flaws the court points out is that the CSRT assumes that the detainees are indictable 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 transactions when all suspects are presumed innocent until proven otherwise. The crook 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 textual evidence, the detainees often go into the CSRT board unload handed and without legal representation. Not only do the proceedings of the CSRT seem unfair, it also seems to be knowing to intentionally make it difficult for detainees to secure their freedom. plan of attack back to the respondents original claim, if the CSRT is essentially a easement 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 former… it is an effective way for mickle to question the legality of their detention by the government.The Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006 was an amendment to the political 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 the MCA cannot houseclean 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 h abeas corpus because it violates the Suspension clause.At the Appellate Court, the respondents (Bush) stated that the Suspension Clause is an ‘individual’ right granted only to US citizens. However, while looking at the text of the Suspension Clause in context, it states: â€Å"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the globe Safety may require it” (US Constitution, art 1, sec 9). The Supreme Court counters the respondent’s argument by stating that the Suspension Clause is meant to be a restriction to Congresses powers and not something that applies to individuals.Nevertheless, nowhere in that phrase do the words ‘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 customary right to anyone being held under US jurisdiction. Additionally, the founding fathers p laced the Suspension Clause in clause 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 Rights which are specifically reserved 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 check one another. The MCA effectively dough the Judiciary Branch to do its job therefore is also unconstitutional.\r\n'