|
''Boumediene v. Bush'', , was a writ of habeas corpus submission made in a civilian court of the United States on behalf of Lakhdar Boumediene, a naturalized citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, held in military detention by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay detention camps in Cuba.〔 (【引用サイトリンク】Center for Constitutional Rights"> url=http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/al-odah-v.-united-states )〕〔 〕 Guantanamo Bay is not formally part of the United States, and under the terms of the 1903 lease between the United States and Cuba, Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory, while the United States exercises complete jurisdiction and control. The case was consolidated with habeas petition ''Al Odah v. United States''. It challenged the legality of Boumediene's detention at the United States Naval Station military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as well as the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Oral arguments on the combined cases were heard by the Supreme Court on December 5, 2007. On June 12, 2008, Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority, holding that the prisoners had a right to the ''habeas corpus'' under the United States Constitution and that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was an unconstitutional suspension of that right. The Court applied the Insular Cases, by the fact that the United States, by virtue of its complete jurisdiction and control, maintains "de facto" sovereignty over this territory, while Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory, to hold that the aliens detained as enemy combatants on that territory were entitled to the writ of habeas corpus protected in Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution. The lower court had expressly indicated that no constitutional rights (not merely the right to habeas) extend to the Guantanamo detainees, rejecting petitioners' arguments, but the Supreme Court held that fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution extend to the Guantanamo detainees as well. Along with ''Rasul v. Bush'' (2004), ''Hamdi v. Rumsfeld'' (2004), and ''Hamdan v. Rumsfeld'' (2006), this is a landmark case in the Court's detainee jurisprudence. ==Background== Following the September 11 attacks in 2001, the United States launched a "Global War on Terror". In November 2001, President Bush asserted authority to try captives from the War before "military commissions" instead of through the civilian court system. Many captives from the war were held at Camp X-Ray, which was opened at the United States' Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba in January 2002. While the United States has an indefinite lease on Guantanamo Bay, Cuba still maintained ''de jure'' sovereignty over the area. Because of the mixed jurisdiction, the Bush administration stated that the captives are not subject to American law and have no right to protection under the United States Constitution nor the American justice system. Beginning in 2002, family and friends of approximately 200 captives initiated ''habeas corpus'' submissions to challenge the detentions. These submissions eventually worked their way through the courts, and on June 28, 2004, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in ''Rasul v. Bush'' (2004). In a 6-3 decision, the Court dismissed the administration's argument that the Naval Base is outside civilian courts' jurisdiction and ruled that the captives must be given an opportunity to hear and attempt to refute whatever evidence had caused them to have been classified as "enemy combatants". As a result, the Department of Defense created the Combatant Status Review Tribunals. At the end of 2005, the United States Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act, which explicitly states that all captives held by the United States are protected against torture. The Act restricted the submission of additional ''habeas corpus'' submissions to the courts, though it did not affect already filed ''habeas corpus'' submissions. Seven months later, the Supreme Court ruled in ''Hamdan v. Rumsfeld'' (2006) that only Congress and not the Executive Branch has the Constitutional authority to set up military commissions to try captives taken in the "war on terror". Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 in October, creating Military Commissions similar to those set up by the Executive Branch and retaining most of the features that had concerned critics. For example, the Commissions were empowered to hear and consider "hearsay evidence", suspects were restricted from attempting to refute or learn about evidence against them that was classified, and submission of evidence extracted from persons using "enhanced interrogation techniques," prior to the passage of the Detainee Treatment Act, was allowed. The Act attempted to mandate that all outstanding ''habeas corpus'' submissions on behalf of the captives should be quashed. In February 2007, a three-judge panel of the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit considered Lakhdar Boumediene's ''habeas corpus'' submission, and in a split decision, upheld the Congress's authority to quash the outstanding ''habeas corpus'' submissions. In April 2007, the Court declined to review the Circuit Court's decision. Within a few months, it reversed this decision; on June 29, 2007, it granted a writ of certiorari to Boumediene and his co-defendants. Over the following six months, in addition to the briefs submitted by the United States government and the petitioner, over 20 amicus briefs were filed on behalf of Boumediene and his co-defendants by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the American Bar Association, and numerous other persons and organizations. The Supreme Court received over two dozen briefs of ''amicus curiae'' on the case, including some written strictly on the history and application of Habeas Corpus in England, Scotland, Hanover, Ireland, Canada, British-controlled territories, India, and the United States. Twenty-two amicus briefs were filed in support of the petitioners, Boumediene and Al Odah, and four were filed in support of the respondents, the Bush Administration. Oral arguments were held on December 5, 2007, and the Supreme Court announced its decision on June 12, 2008. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Boumediene v. Bush」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|