Joined by Ginsburg, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part, and concurring in the judgment). The parties recite in their several briefs the substantial competing interests of individual liberty and national security that are at stake, much as did the Supreme Court in Hamdi, 542 U.S. 11, the United StatesĬonfronts a stateless enemy in the war on terror that is difficult to identify and widely dispersed. 1920), the Geneva Conventions, e.g., Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Aug. Unlike the uniformed combat that is contemplated by the laws of war, see generally William Winthrop, Military Law and Precedents (2d ed. 1, 28 (1942)), and the Executive detention at issue is the product of a unique situation in our history. at 2786 (citing Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. The fundamental question presented by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is whether Executive detention is lawful.Ī far more difficult question is what serves to justify Executive detention under the law.Īt the margin, the precise constitutional bounds of Executive authority are unclear, see Hamdan, 126 S. The district court granted the government’s motion and dismissed the petitions. President’s powers under Article II, Congress’s Authorization for the Use of Military Force (“AUMF”), and the Order on Detention (Nov. Rejecting the petitioners’ claim that their detention is unjustified, the district court ruled that “no viable legal theory exists by which could issue a writ of habeas corpus under” the circumstances presented, id.

The Khalid decision also covers the separate case of a French citizen seized in Pakistan and transported to Guantanamo Bay. They were arrested by Bosnian police in 2001 on suspicion of plotting to attack the United States and British embassies in Sarajevo.Īfter the Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina ordered the six men to be released in January 2002, they were seized by United States forces and transported to Guantanamo Bay. Leon considered the habeas petitions of five Algerian-Bosnian citizens and one Algerian citizen with permanent Bosnian residency. The district court further ruled that the Taliban but not the al Qaeda detainees were entitled to the protections of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions. He petitioners have stated valid claims under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and … the procedures implemented by the government to confirm that the petitioners are “enemy combatants” subject to indefinite detention violate the petitioners’ rights to due process of law. These detainees are citizens of friendly nations - Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Kuwait, Libya, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and Yemen - who were seized in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, The Gambia, Pakistan, Thailand, and Zambia.Įach detainee maintains that he was wrongly classified as an “enemy combatant.”ĭenying in part the government’s motion to dismiss the petitions, the district court ruled: 2005), Judge Joyce Hens Green addressed eleven coordinated habeas cases involving 56 aliens being detained by the United States as “enemy combatants” at Guantanamo Bay, id. In In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases, 355 F.

Ex parte quiri.