Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T22:33:49.794Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia: Boumediene V. Bush

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Robert M. Chesney
Robert M. Chesney*
Affiliation:
Wake Forest University School of Law and University of Texas School of Law
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Legal Material
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , February 2009 , pp. 187 - 191
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

End notes

* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text appearing at the Supreme Court of the United States Blog website: (visited February 10, 2009)<http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/boumediene-order-10-27-08.pdf>

1 128 S. Ct. 2229 (2008), reprinted in 47 I.L.M. 650 (2008).

2 Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against those Responsible for the Recent Attacks Launched Against the United States, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001) [hereinafter AUMF].

3 See generally, Ben Wittes, Law and the Long War: The Future of Justice in the Age of Terror (2008).

4 Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), reprinted in 43 I.L.M. 1166 (2004).

5 The plurality also concluded that the government had not yet provided Hamdi with adequate procedural safeguards en route to determining that he was in fact a Taliban fighter. He was repatriated to Saudi Arabia later that year, rendering his petition moot.

6 Petitioners’ Memorandum Regarding the Definition of “Enemy Combatant” at 2, Boumediene v. Bush, No. 04-CV-1166 (RJL) (D.D.C. Oct. 20, 2008).

7 Respondents’ Memorandum Addressing the Definition of “Enemy Combatant” at 5, Boumediene v. Bush, No. 04-CV- 1166 (RJL) (D.D.C. Oct. 22, 2008).

8 Boumediene v. Bush, 583 F. Supp. 2d 133, 134 (D.D.C. 2008) [hereinafter Boumediene II].

9 Id.

10 See Combatant Status Review Tribunal Process, sec. B, at< http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2004/d20040730comb.pdf>. 11 The laws of war might be relevant either on their own force or through their influence on the interpretation of the AUMF or Article II.

12 Boumediene v. Bush, No. 04-1166 (RJL) (D.D.C. Nov. 20, 2008), available at< http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/leon-boumediene-order-11-20-2008.pdf> [hereinafter Boumediene III].

13 See id. at 8.

14 Id.

15 Exec. Order, Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and Closure of Detention Facilities (Jan. 22, 2009), available at< http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ClosureOfGuantanamoDetentionFacilities/>; Exec. Order, Review of Detention Policy Options, available at< http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ReviewofDetentionPolicyOptions/>.

16 In re Guantánamo Bay Detainee Litigation, No. 08-442, et al. (D.D.C. Mar. 13, 2009), at 2 (italics added).

17 Boumediene III, supra note 12 at 6-7.

18 Al-Maqalah v. Gates, No. 06-1669 et al.(D.D.C. Mar. 2, 2009), available at< https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2008cv2143-21>.