The Appeals Court, however, rejected this argument as an “extreme understanding.” Understandably, the Appeals Court fears that such an interpretation would create the potential for extending habeas rights to non-citizens held in any United States military facility in the world.
Here, the Bagram petitioners assert that the of United States lease of Bagram is likewise sufficient to effectuate habeas rights, or at least satisfy the second factor of the three factor test set forth in Boumediene. The Boumediene Court, thus, rejected the Government’s argument that it did not maintain legal sovereignty over Gitmo, but rather it maintained sovereignty over the base de facto. Although Gitmo is located on Cuba’s sovereign soil, the High Court disagreed with the Government, finding that the United States maintained the facility for over a century, in the face of a hostile regime, and outside the theater of war. In Boumediene, the Supreme Court found it uncontested that the United States maintained sovereignty over Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo). whether the federal courts have jurisdiction to determine the legality of the Executive’s potentially indefinite detention of individuals who claim to be wholly innocent of wrongdoing.” Citing from previous case law, the Court states: “hat is presently at stake is. In response, the Government stated that it “adheres to its previously articulated position.” Now that’s change we can believe in.Īdmittedly, the Court of Appeals carefully expounded upon the historical case background of habeas corpus rights as applied to non-citizens. Perhaps even stranger, the lower court citing a change in executive administrations, invited the Government to express any change in its position regarding the Commissions Act of 2006 and its effect on the question of jurisdiction in this case. To my surprise, the three-judg\e panel of the Appeals Court consisted of one conservative and two liberals.
0 kommentar(er)
