Briefing Court Decisions

Submitted by Writer's Name, SS#

I. Name and Citation:

Rasul v. Bush, 542 U. S.(2004).

II. Key Facts:

During the United States' War on Terror, a joint resolution was passed by Congress empowering the President for using all needed and suitable force versus those countries, or persons he found out intended, authorized, charged, or supported the terrorist attacks or shielded such people or organizations.

Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal and, Mamdouh Habib were British while David Hicks Australian national who had been confiscated in 2001-02 in Pakistan and Afghanistan and finally handed to U.S. authorities. They were then shifted to the detention camp in Guantanamo Bay, where they were restrained with no accusation, trial, or any accession to counsel. Rasul, Iqbal, and Hicks eventually, in 2002, in U.S. district court, gainsaid their imprisonments, contending that they had not affianced in war in opposition to the United States or not involved in any radical acts and that their confinement entailed to a contravention of the due process of law as there was a violation of clause of the Fifth Amendment. A similar suit was filed by Habib three months later.

III. The Issue:

Do foreign nationals behind bars in a foreign country file habeas corpus petitions in U.S. courts? And do the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay have the rights to challenge their detention or the President of United States could rebuff Guantanamo prisoners the right to defy their confinement before neutral third parties?

Do courts in United States have legal power to reflect on legal appeals lodged in lieu of foreign nationals detained by the military of United States in Naval Base of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?

IV. Holding and Vote:

6 votes were turned for Rasul while 3 votes were turned against him.

V. Reasoning

Majority opinion of Justice Stevens in the Rasul v Bush case (induced on behalf of a foreigner prisoner) demonstrated nothing of O'Connor's complaisance to the government. Abstaining from, O'Connor's unclear compromising position, Justice Stevens straightforwardly reasoned out that federal law bestows on the jurisdiction of District Court to try petitioners' habeas corpus challenges to the legality of their detention at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in 6-to-3 opinion that the Court discovered that the extent of power exerted over the Guantanamo Bay base by the United States was adequate enough to set off the relevance of habeas corpus rights. Applying a catalog of cases in point extending back to English precedent cases of mid seventeenth Century, Stevens established that the right to habeas corpus can be carried out in all territories in the autonomous control. Since the United States exerted “complete jurisdiction and control” throughout the naval base in Cuba, the verity that eventual dominion lingered with Cuba was beside the point. Moreover, it was written by Stevens that the right to habeas corpus is independent of nationality status. Therefore, the detainees were liberated for bringing lawsuit challenging their confinement as unauthorized.

VI. Separate Opinions:

(a) The opinion of the Court was delivered by Stevens, which were joined by O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, ...