Case: Boumediene v. Bush





Youth gangs and organized crime

Case: Boumdiane v. Bush

Introduction

The Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution on 12th June, 2009 was enforced on the enemy warriors. They were detained in the U.S. territory. In other words, this explains about no indefinite detention of these enemy warriors without the fair hearings of civilian courts. This assignment provides facts and analysis on the case Boumediene v. Bush (2008. It was a writ of habeas corpus (may you have the body) at the city of Guantanamo Bay. This assignment presents facts and summary of the case, relevant constitutional status of the legal text, and preceding hearing of related case laws. The aftermath, concurrence with majority ruling, and opinions of the court are also present at the end of this assignment.

Discussion

Facts of the Case (Summary of Facts)

Boumdiene v Bush (2008) is one of the most significant cases in U.S. legislation. The legal title of this case is “Boumediene v.Bush “553 U.S 723 (2008)” (Boumediene v. Bush, 2007). The detention at Guantanamo Bay (United Station Naval Station), of Boumdiene as an enemy warrior, enforces him to put petition under writ Habeas Corpus to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colombia. Location of Guantanamo Bay is exterior to the territory of sovereign U.S. is cause for lack of jurisdiction. Another reason for case dismissal is the affirmation of court of appeal for dismissal (Gaffney, 2009). The Supreme Court decided to hear the case in the wake of Hmdan v. Rumsfield and the Military Commission Act of 2006 which refute jurisdiction of the federal court to hear Habeas Corpus actions by detainees.

The year 2002 has witnessed five young men invaded Afghanistan to capture and ship off for joining various additional detainees at the military prison of the U.S. in the Cuba city of Guantanamo Bay. The indefinite detention with no criminal convict after six years stayed them in the violation of international human rights standards (Boumediene v. Bush, 2007).

The Big Question, The Relevant Constitutional and Legal Text

It can be seen that the constitution offer the detainees with the right to writ habeas corpus. This legal action indicates about the sovereignty of the United States for Guantanamo Bay. Although it is not a complete sovereignty over the territory, but they do have a complete jurisdiction .Apparently, Cuba has no rights on Guantanamo unless the parties agree for change the provisions of lease agreement. The United State has dejure sovereignty over Guantanamo Bay. This makes it obvious that the detainees shares a constitutional rights for writing a habeas corpus (Boumediene v. Bush, 2007).Therefore, we don't question if the USA government has any sovereignty on Guantanamo Bay. Additionally, the Constitution was very clear when making a statement that the Supreme Court can enforce a statutory to avoid constitutional difficulties and Congress can legislate by modifying the statue or retain the existing one (Gaffney, 2009).

Moreover, the separation of power structure likes a substantive guarantee of the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment ...