Rasul v. Bush

This article has multiple issues. Please help **improve it ** or discuss these issues on the **talk page **. (Learn how and when to remove these messages )

This article includes a list of general references , but **it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations **. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (August 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this message )

This article **needs more citations **. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources . Unsourced material may be challenged and removed .
Find sources: "Rasul v. Bush"  – news  · newspapers  · books  · scholar  · JSTOR (August 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this message )

(Learn how and when to remove this message )

Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that foreign nationals held in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp could petition federal courts for writs of _habeas corpus _ to review the legality of their detention. The Court's 6–3 judgment on June 28, 2004, reversed a D.C. Circuit decision which had held that the judiciary has no jurisdiction to hear any petitions from foreign nationals held in Guantanamo Bay.

The lead petitioner, British citizen Shafiq Rasul , was one of the Tipton Three . The U.S. transported the three men to the United Kingdom in March 2004 before the decision was handed down, and the government released them the next day.

Contents

• 1 Background

  • 1.1 Military order

  • 1.2 Capture and detainment

• 2 Procedural history

  • 2.1 Court petitions

  • 2.2 U.S. District Court

  • 2.3 U.S. Court of Appeals

• 3 Supreme Court

  • 3.1 Release of Rasul and Iqbal

  • 3.2 Oral arguments

    • 3.2.1 Quotes

  • 3.3 Opinion of the Court

  • 3.4 Justice Kennedy's concurrence in judgment

  • 3.5 Justice Scalia's dissent

• 4 Subsequent developments

  • 4.1 Justice Rutledge's influence

  • 4.2 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006)

  • 4.3 Boumediene v. Bush (2008)

• 5 See also

• 6 References

• 7 Further reading

• 8 External links

Background

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rasul_v._Bush&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")

Military order

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rasul_v._Bush&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Military order")

On September 14, 2001, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists , giving the President of the United States broad powers to prosecute a "War on Terror" in response to the September 11 attacks . Secretary of State Colin Powell and State Department Legal Advisor William Howard Taft IV advised that the President must observe the Geneva Conventions . Colonel Lawrence Morris proposed holding public hearings modeled on the Nuremberg trials . Major General Thomas Romig, the Judge Advocate General of the United States Army , recommended any new military tribunals be modeled on existing courts-martial .

However, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Jay Bybee , relying on the unitary executive theory developed by Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo , advised the President in a series of memos that he could hold enemy combatants abroad, indefinitely, without Congressional oversight, and free from judicial review . On November 13, 2001, President George W. Bush signed a military order titled the Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism , which sought to detain and try enemy combatants by military commissions under Presidential authority alone.

Capture and detainment

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rasul_v._Bush&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Capture and detainment")

The various plaintiffs were taken to Guantanamo Bay for different reasons, but were generally captured or arrested during the United States invasion of Afghanistan .

The U.S. military transferred Rasul and Asif Iqbal , both British citizens, and David Hicks , an Australian citizen, to Guantanamo Bay in December 2001. Each denied voluntarily joining any terrorist forces. As noted by the District Court, they did not deny having fought for the Taliban , but claimed that if they did take up arms, it was only when being attacked and in self-defense.[_citation needed
_] Rasul and Iqbal say they were with the Taliban because they were taken captive. Hicks is silent on the matter in court filings, but his father, in filing the brief, said that he believed that his son had joined the Taliban forces.

The twelve Kuwaitis , combined in _

…