Boumediene v Bush - Do 1 Josephine Do Plank Government II Analyses of Court Cases Throughout our history the U.S courts have protected the freedoms

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Do, 1 Josephine Do 7-25-2011 Plank Government II: Analyses of Court Cases Throughout our history, the U.S. courts have protected the freedoms of people whose political view, religious beliefs, or ethnic backgrounds made them unpopular. The establishment of the judiciary branch was unique in that its goal is to protect individual liberty from the tyranny of the majority. This branch of government deals with 25 million cases annually with one American in every nine is directly involved in litigation; with that said, the implementations and rulings manifested by virtue of the judicial branch significantly affects us all. The deliberate and heavy uses of courts demonstrate the conflict we face as a nation and the amount of faith we store in the judicial sector. Two such examples of the Federal Courts and their executions as an all-powerful “imperial judiciary” are Boumediene v. Bush, a case dealing with “due process” provisions and the “writ of habeas corpus”, and Kennedy v. Louisiana, a case dealing with the 8 th amendment’s “cruel & unusual” punishment provision. Case 1: Boumediene v. Bush was a court case that dealt with an Extraterritorial Reach of Writ of Habeas Corpus through a Suspension Clause. National security, privacy and American politics in general have taken an extreme turn in the unraveled events attributed to the current “war on terror”. This prolonged war ushered a series of litigation in order to assess whether well- established and time-honored traditional American principles, such as access to the courts, remain essential outside national borders. (The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law) In response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the President Bush dispatched U.S. armed forces to Afghanistan to strike al-Qaeda base camps and subdue the Taliban regime. Since the invasion, the U.S. military has taken thousands of prisoners, many of them located in U.S. facilities in that theatre, while others were transferred to U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The president expressed his will to strip rights of Guantanamo prisoners who are
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
2 not entitled to prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 1949. (Turley) In 2002, several relatives of some prisoners filed habeas corpus petitions challenging the legality of their imprisonment at Guantanamo. These prisoners did not challenge the given authority of the President and the military to take suspected members of hostile forces into custody, claiming that they had never been a combatant against the U.S. and have been denied the right to counsel along with access to the court system. ( Legal Information Institute- Cornell Law) The U.S. government answered by urging the District Court to promptly dismiss the petitions, because they reasoned that recognizing jurisdiction over the prisoner’s habeas claims would encroach the power of the Executive as well as Congress. The Court heard this controversy in 2004 with court case Rasul v. Bushwhich held that
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 08/26/2011 for the course CH 302 taught by Professor Holcombe during the Spring '07 term at University of Texas at Austin.

Page1 / 9

Boumediene v Bush - Do 1 Josephine Do Plank Government II Analyses of Court Cases Throughout our history the U.S courts have protected the freedoms

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online