Bismullah v. Gates: Difference between revisions
imported>George Swan (minor) |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (text edit) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
'''Bismullah v. Gates''' is a [[habeas corpus|writ of habeas corpus]] appeal in the [[United States Justice System]], on behalf of [[Bismullah (Guantanamo detainee 968)|Bismullah]] -- a captive held in [[extrajudicial detention]] in the | '''Bismullah v. Gates''' is a [[habeas corpus|writ of habeas corpus]] appeal in the [[United States Justice System]], on behalf of [[Bismullah (Guantanamo detainee 968)|Bismullah]] -- a captive held in [[extrajudicial detention]] in the [[Guantanamo detention camp]] in Cuba.<ref name=Scotusblog20070510> | ||
{{cite news | {{cite news | ||
| url=http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/05/new_development.html | | url=http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/05/new_development.html | ||
| date= | | date=May 10, 2007 | ||
| title=New developments on detainees | | title=New developments on detainees | ||
| author= | | author=Lyle Denniston | ||
| publisher= | | publisher=Scotusblog | ||
| accessdate=2007-09-18 | | accessdate=2007-09-18 | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
Initially, the [[George W. Bush|Bush]] [[United States President|Presidency]] | Initially, the [[George W. Bush|Bush]] [[United States President|Presidency]] | ||
asserted that none of the captives apprehended during the "[[global war on terror]]" were protected by the | asserted that none of the captives apprehended during the "[[global war on terror]]" were protected by the Geneva Conventions. The Bush Presidency asserted that the [[Guantanamo Bay Naval Station]] was not United States territory, and that it was not subject to United States law. Consequently, they challenged that the captives were entitled to submit writs of [[habeas corpus]]. | ||
The [[Supreme Court of the United States]] ruled, in [[Rasul v. Bush]], that the Guantanamo base was covered by US law.<ref name=RvB>{{{cite court | |||
|litigants = Rasul ''et al.'' v. Bush, President of the United States | |||
|vol = 321 | |||
|reporter = F.3d | |||
|opinion = 1134 | |||
|court = Supreme Court of the United States | |||
|date = June 28, 2004 | |||
|url= http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-334.ZS.html}}</ref> | |||
==Hearing before the DC Court of appeals== | ==Hearing before the DC Court of appeals== | ||
Om July 20, 2007, the [[United States Court of Appeals]] for the [[United States Court of Appeals for the district of Columbia Circuit|district of Columbia Circuit]] reached a decision in Bismullah v. Gates on July 20 2007.<ref name=DoJBismullahVGates20070720> | |||
{{cite web | {{cite web | ||
| url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200707/06-1197a.pdf | | url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200707/06-1197a.pdf | ||
| Line 26: | Line 31: | ||
| publisher=[[United States Department of Justice]] | | publisher=[[United States Department of Justice]] | ||
| accessdate=2007-09-18 | | accessdate=2007-09-18 | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> The three judge panel ruled that Guantanamo captive's attorneys should be allowed to review all the classified evidence in their client's dossier.<ref name=DoJBismullahVGates20070720/> | ||
The | The [[United States Department of Justice]] requested a rehearing [[en banc]] of this case on | ||
September 1 2007.<ref name=ScottusBlogBismullah20070901> | |||
{{cite news | {{cite news | ||
| publisher= | | publisher=Scotusblog | ||
| url=http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/09/government_to_s.html | | url=http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/09/government_to_s.html | ||
| date=Saturday, September 1, 2007 | | date=Saturday, September 1, 2007 | ||
| title=Government to seek Bismullah rehearing | | title=Government to seek Bismullah rehearing | ||
| author= | | author=Lyle Denniston | ||
| accessdate=2007-09-18 | | accessdate=2007-09-18 | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> Its request stated, <blockquote>The record as defined by Bismullah is not simply a collection of papers sitting in a box at the Defense Department. It is a massive undertaking just to produce the record in this one case." Producing it by a court-ordered Sept. 13 deadline in Paracha "is not possible without potentially compromising the reliability of the production and without also fundamentally compromising the intelligence agencies' ability to redact sensitive national security material, as permitted by this Court's Bismullah decision.</blockquote> | ||
Senior members of the US intelligence establishment went on record to support the Department of Justice's request for a re-hearing.<ref name=WashingtonPost20070912> | Senior members of the US intelligence establishment went on record to support the Department of Justice's request for a re-hearing.<ref name=WashingtonPost20070912> | ||
| Line 46: | Line 48: | ||
| url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/11/AR2007091102678.html | | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/11/AR2007091102678.html | ||
| title=Intelligence Chiefs Back A Guantanamo Reversal | | title=Intelligence Chiefs Back A Guantanamo Reversal | ||
| author= | | author=Carol D. Leonnig | ||
| publisher=[[Washington Post]] | | publisher=[[Washington Post]] | ||
| date= | | date=September 12, 2007 | ||
| page=A05 | | page=A05 | ||
| accessdate=2007-09-18 | | accessdate=2007-09-18 | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
The five senior official filed documents supporting the Department of Justice request on | The five senior official filed documents supporting the Department of Justice request on September 7, [[2007]] -- six days before the deadline expired. | ||
CIA Director Michael V. Hayden wrote | Two of the five documents were classified. CIA Director Michael V. Hayden wrote"The breadth of discovery apparently required by the Court's decision will include information about virtually every weapon in the CIA's arsenal to combat the terrorist threat to the United States."<ref name=WashingtonPost20070912/> | ||
"The breadth of discovery apparently required by the Court's decision will include information about virtually every weapon in the CIA's arsenal to combat the terrorist threat to the United States." | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{reflist|2}} | |||
Revision as of 21:02, 6 December 2008
Bismullah v. Gates is a writ of habeas corpus appeal in the United States Justice System, on behalf of Bismullah -- a captive held in extrajudicial detention in the Guantanamo detention camp in Cuba.[1]
Rasul v. Bush
Initially, the Bush Presidency asserted that none of the captives apprehended during the "global war on terror" were protected by the Geneva Conventions. The Bush Presidency asserted that the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station was not United States territory, and that it was not subject to United States law. Consequently, they challenged that the captives were entitled to submit writs of habeas corpus.
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled, in Rasul v. Bush, that the Guantanamo base was covered by US law.[2]
Hearing before the DC Court of appeals
Om July 20, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the district of Columbia Circuit reached a decision in Bismullah v. Gates on July 20 2007.[3] The three judge panel ruled that Guantanamo captive's attorneys should be allowed to review all the classified evidence in their client's dossier.[3]
The United States Department of Justice requested a rehearing en banc of this case on
September 1 2007.[4] Its request stated,
The record as defined by Bismullah is not simply a collection of papers sitting in a box at the Defense Department. It is a massive undertaking just to produce the record in this one case." Producing it by a court-ordered Sept. 13 deadline in Paracha "is not possible without potentially compromising the reliability of the production and without also fundamentally compromising the intelligence agencies' ability to redact sensitive national security material, as permitted by this Court's Bismullah decision.
Senior members of the US intelligence establishment went on record to support the Department of Justice's request for a re-hearing.[5] The five senior official filed documents supporting the Department of Justice request on September 7, 2007 -- six days before the deadline expired.
Two of the five documents were classified. CIA Director Michael V. Hayden wrote"The breadth of discovery apparently required by the Court's decision will include information about virtually every weapon in the CIA's arsenal to combat the terrorist threat to the United States."[5]
References
- ↑ Lyle Denniston. New developments on detainees, Scotusblog, May 10, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-09-18.
- ↑ {Rasul et al. v. Bush, President of the United States, 321 F.3d 1134 (Supreme Court of the United States June 28, 2004)
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Bismullah v. Gates. United States Department of Justice (July 20 2007). Retrieved on 2007-09-18.
- ↑ Lyle Denniston. Government to seek Bismullah rehearing, Scotusblog, Saturday, September 1, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-09-18.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Carol D. Leonnig. Intelligence Chiefs Back A Guantanamo Reversal, Washington Post, September 12, 2007, p. A05. Retrieved on 2007-09-18.