|
(詳細はCenter for Constitutional Rights and co-counsels challenging the legality of the continued detention as enemy combatants of Guantanamo detainees. It was consolidated with ''Boumediene v. Bush'' (2008), which is the lead name of the decision. The case was a continuation of the landmark Center for Constitutional Rights case ''Rasul v. Bush'' (2004). That decision determined that Guantanamo detainees had to be provided an opportunity before an impartial tribunal to challenge the grounds of their detention. Since that decision, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which restricted detainees from filing habeas corpus petitions in federal court. ''Al Odah'' is an umbrella effort, incorporating sixteen habeas corpus petitions. It was consolidated under ''Boumediene v. Bush'', which shared habeas issues. Oral arguments were heard by the Supreme Court on December 5, 2007, and was one of the most anticipated cases before the Court in its term.〔(The Supreme Court Showdown of the Year ), ''The New York Times'', October 23, 2007〕〔 〕〔 〕〔 〕〔 〕〔 〕〔 (mirror ) 〕 The decision, striking down that provision of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, was handed down on 12 June 2008. The Supreme Court ruled that detainees can appeal habeas corpus in civilian federal courts.〔(Justices Rule Terror Suspects Can Appeal in Civilian Courts )〕〔(Transcript of Supreme Court oral arguments for ''Boumediene v. Bush'' (No. 06-1195) and ''Al Odah v. US'' (06-1196) )〕 ==Case History== ''Al Odah v. United States'' was originally filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights and co-counsel in April 2002 on behalf of twelve imprisoned Kuwaitis, including Fawzi Al Odah, seeking the right of habeas corpus. A government motion to dismiss the petition was granted on July 30, 2002 by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the US District Court for D.C.. The Center for Constitutional Rights appealed the case, which had been consolidated with the other two leading habeas corpus petitions, ''Rasul v. Bush'' and ''Habib v. Bush''. On March 11, 2003, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case. On November 10, 2003, the Supreme Court granted ''certiorari'' to the three leading habeas petitions, consolidated under the name ''Rasul v. Bush''. On June 28, 2004, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision on the subject of Guantanamo detainees. In ''Rasul v. Bush'', the Court determined that with respect to Guantanamo, the right to habeas corpus does not depend on citizenship. This decision affirmed the jurisdiction of the U.S. court system over Guantanamo cases, as it ultimately had jurisdiction over the custodians of the detainees. It affirmed the right of detainees to challenge their detention before an impartial tribunal. Following this decision, the Court remanded the habeas petitions to lower courts for decisions. On July 7, 2004, the Department of Defense established Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs), military forums created as a substitute for the judicial process in U.S. civilian and military courts. The Bush administration has consistently asserted that the detainees at Guantanamo do not have the right to due process and established the CSRT process as an alternative to review charges and determine if detainees were to be classified as enemy combatants. Following the establishment of the tribunals, the government filed motions to dismiss pending habeas corpus cases, on the basis that the cases should be heard by the CSRT system. The District Court Judge Richard J. Leon dismissed two cases assigned to him on this basis on January 19, 2005. Days later, on January 31, Judge Joyce Hens Green, who had been assigned in 2004 to coordinate all the habeas corpus petitions following the ''Rasul v. Bush'' decision, ruled that detainees are entitled to constitutional protections, and that the CSRT system is inadequate to the task. On December 30, 2005, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA). In accordance with the Bush administration goals, the DTA removed Guantanamo habeas corpus cases from the jurisdiction of the US Circuit Court for D.C. and gave authority over these cases to the CSRT and military commission system set up by the Department of Defense. In January 2006, government lawyers moved to dismiss pending habeas cases, arguing that the DTA should be applied retroactively. The affected cases included ''Al Odah'' and ''Boumediene'' at the US circuit court level, and ''Hamdan v. Rumsfeld'' at the level of the Supreme Court. On June 29, 2006, the Supreme Court ruled in ''Hamdan'' that the DTA cannot be applied retroactively. It determined that the military commissions created by the executive branch violate both military law under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva conventions, to which the US is signatory and incorporated them into law. It ruled that the executive branch did not have the authority to set up a separate judicial system. The Supreme Court decision meant that ''Boumediene'' and ''Al Odah'' could continue in the U.S. civilian court system. In response to the ''Hamdan'' ruling, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) to authorize a new form of military commissions; the president signed it on October 17, 2006. The MCA described the CSRT review process as a substitute for habeas proceedings in U.S. courts and excluded the judicial review of claims challenging detention by non-citizens determined by their CSRTs to be enemy combatants or to be awaiting such determination. On February 20, 2007, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the ''Boumediene'' and ''Al Odah'' plaintiffs, as non-citizens, were not entitled to habeas review due to the passage of the Military Commissions Act. The Center for Constitutional Rights and its co-counsel appealed the consolidated cases to the Supreme Court. Initially, the Court refused to hear the case, advising attorneys and plaintiffs to exhaust the review process set up by the DTA. But, less than two months later, in its first reversal in 60 years, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the consolidated ''Boumediene'' and ''Al Odah'' case during the 2007-2008 term.〔(CCR: Al Odah Case Page )〕 Commentators have speculated that a widely publicized insider condemnation in November 2007 of the CSRT system was the catalyst for the Supreme Court's reversal. Lieutenant Colonel Stephen Abraham, an Army Reserve officer who had been a panelist on a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, strongly criticized the process in a written affidavit of June 2007, saying that evidence was insufficient and that panelists had been pressured to find detainees were enemy combatants. 〔("Guantanamo Whistleblower Launches New Attack on Rigged Tribunals" ), ''The Huffington Post'', November 20, 2007〕 He described the CSRT system as deeply flawed, saying that it relies on evidence that would not be permissible in a court of law and that it is designed to return a guilty verdict. Abraham submitted his affidavit to the Supreme Court on June 22, 2007, just days before the Court reversed its decision and added the ''Boumediene'' and ''Al Odah'' case to their 2007-2008 docket.〔(Gitmo Panelist Slams Hearing Process ), ''CBS'', June 23, 2007〕 Referring specifically to the Al Odah CSRT hearings, in which he participated, Abraham said, "What were purported to be specific statements of fact lacked even the most fundamental earmarks of objectively credible evidence."〔 〕 The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case on December 5, 2007. Demonstrators dressed in detainee-like orange jumpsuits and black hoods assembled outside the building.〔("Court Divided After Day One of Guantanamo Case" ), ''NPR'', December 6, 2007〕 The day in court was widely reported in the United States and international media. 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「Al Odah v. United States」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|