A persistent standard of indefinite detention without trial and incidents of torture led the operations of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp to be challenged internationally as an affront to international human rights, and challenged domestically as a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution,[1][2] including the right of petition for habeas corpus.
[5] Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for a five-justice majority, held that the detainees had a statutory right to petition federal courts for habeas review.
[7] Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the four-justice plurality opinion finding that an American citizen detained in Guantanamo had a constitutional right to petition federal courts for habeas review under the Due Process Clause.
The United States Department of Defense (DoD) at first kept secret the identity of the individuals held in Guantanamo, but after losing attempts to defy a Freedom of Information Act request from the Associated Press, the U.S. military officially acknowledged holding 779 prisoners.
[8] The geographical situation of the camp in Cuba permits American personnel from the DoD and the broader intelligence community to operate at the far boundaries of constitutional safeguards[9] with less personal exposure to litigation.
At Guantanamo Bay, the military administration has consistently prioritized national security over conflicting interests of due process, while slow-pedaling even the most basic disclosures.
Many detainees were held for extreme durations without charge, spanning multiple presidential administrations, even while their rights to habeas corpus remained under protracted litigation.
He was a healthy man when he was first captured by US forces but is now confined to a wheelchair after two vertebrae were broken in vicious beatings in the camp.
Taking into account the inhumane conditions of the camp it is not surprising that Guantanamo detainees have sought protection from the principles of habeas corpus.
[11] The abuse of international human rights law lies in the treatment of detainees, the absence of public scrutiny, judicial review and government accountability.
[11] The U.S. government deliberately chose Guantanamo Bay as the site for detaining foreign citizens as they believed it would be exempt from any obligations they held under the Geneva Convention.
[15] The Center for Constitutional Rights took a lead role in helping to organize the activities of lawyers willing to offer their services, pro bono, to the Guantanamo detainees.
Submitting writs of habeas corpus was made more difficult at first, because part of the Bush detainee policy was to keep the identity of the Guantanamo captives a secret.
A related decision was Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), which ruled that United States citizens detained as suspected enemy combatants had the right to habeas corpus challenge of their detention.
In response to Rasul v Bush, the U.S. government passed the Detainee Treatment Act 2005 in an attempt to prevent aliens from petitioning for habeas corpus in American courts.
[17] Section 1005(e) states that "[N]o court, justice, or Judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained at the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba'.
They confirmed in their judgement the unlawfulness of the US Government in the use of torture, cruel and humiliating treatment, and international law should limit the power of the President.
[11] Hamdam v Rumsfeld has been acknowledged as a milestone case for Guantanamo detainees; Walter Dellinger even claimed that 'Hamdam is simply the most important decision on Presidential power and the rule of law.
[19] It followed the passing of the Detainee Treatment Act and gave the Supreme Court an 'early opportunity to assess the nature and extent of the jurisdiction-stripping measure'.
[22] On June 29, 2007, the Supreme Court agreed to hear outstanding habeas corpus, opening up the possibility that they might overturn some or all of the Military Commissions Act.
[24][25][26][27] Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, described the CSR Tribunals as "inadequate", and wrote: The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.More than 200 detainees have had habeas petitions filed on their behalf.