Talk:Boumediene v. Bush

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We need a better source[edit]

The only source at the moment appears to be from a forum, when are normally not considered reliable sources. Jon 17:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to "Additional References included it regarding this case" section below for better sources reference.

--Seablade (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attention?[edit]

Ok, i'm on it; give me a few days to mull it over. JeanLatore (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Facts[edit]

This article needs to explain the facts of the individual parties involved. It doesn't explain who Mr. Boumediene and Mr. al Odah are. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this article is currently being considered at WP:ITN/C. Please add more citations to improve its chances of Main Page placement. Thanks, BanyanTree 00:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey folks.. this sentance is not true: "This Court's case precedent recognized that fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution extend to Guantanamo". The dissent opinion explicitly states this is not true - "rejecting petitioners' arguments under this Court's precedent that ..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.240.142 (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson v. Eisentrager[edit]

I have been doing some research on this case and see that a major theme is Kennedy's interpretation of the 1950 case Johnson v. Eisentrager, in which the court had a much different decision. Parallels can be drawn between the two cases. Is this something that would be appropriate to add to this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdemarre (talk • contribs) 16:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy's position[edit]

This sentence: "Kennedy had supported the government's position in past cases that SCOTUSblog assumed would parallel this one" mischaracterizes Justice Kennedy's position in the prior detainee cases, the only relevant "past cases" this could be referring to. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the first significant detainee case, Kennedy joined Breyer, O'Connor, and Rehnquist in staking out a middle ground that rejected full procedural rights for citizens alleged to be involved in terrorist activity, but also rejected the argument that these individuals had no rights under U.S. law. It was widely perceived at the time (and still is perceived) as a repudiation of the Bush Administration's broad claims of power to detain and prosecute "enemy combatants." The only judge who "support[ed] the government's position" in Hamdi was Justice Thomas. In Rasul v. Bush, Kennedy joined the majority in asserting the courts' power to review legal claims brought by non-citizen detainees held at Guantanamo. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Kennedy provided the crucial fifth vote for the holding that military commissions set up to try the Guantanamo detainees violated the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions. Although he authored a limiting concurrence, Kennedy once again rejected the government's position. Without actually reading the SCOTUSBlog post cited (it is not linked, which is another problem with the section), I'd be loath to take issue with their analysis; they have some very smart Court watchers over there. However, it seems completely inaccurate to characterize Kennedy's positions in prior related cases as in any substantial way supportive of the government. 63.237.221.227 (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the writing of this article[edit]

The article does a pretty good job, in my opinion, of succinctly summarizing in 1 paragraph a 70-page decision. And the chart format is useful in giving readers an understanding of the procedural history of the case. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the language needs to be cleaned up. For example, in the timeline for the Detainee Treatment Act this language has no place:

"This act, sponsored by Senator John McCain, a former Prisoner of War who had been tortured in enemy custody, explicitly states that all captives held by the United States are protected against torture."

There were many sponsors on this bill and the fact that McCain was a POW and that he may or may not have been tortured while in custody certainly has no bearing on this case and therefore should not be included in the timeline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.209.174 (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship?[edit]

I trimmed the passage who is not a citizen of the United States but a naturalized citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina -- to just "a naturalized citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina". I have read a lot of comments about this ruling in the last couple of days. Quite a few commentators keep repeating that only US citizens are entitled to the protections of US law.

I don't know if his non-citizenship in the USA is worth mentioning. I am sure it doesn't merit mention in the lead.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Boumediene's non-citizenship was one of two major points of the government's argument (along with the contention that Guantanamo is not a US facility), I'd say that it very much merits a mention. Stationary (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's important for Hamdi, but it's less so for this case, and so I don't see it belonging in the lead.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Courts have consistently held that US courts can have "long arm" jurisdiction over citizens in Habeas cases. This hadn't been (before this ruling) clearly held as a right for non-citizens. It matters. Huadpe (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Boumediene v. Bush[edit]

Why was the timeline split-off from this article sans discusison? I don't think the article is big enough to warrant split-offs. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justice Scalia's dissent[edit]

My next project is to totally re-write this section. I should have it up in a few days. JeanLatore (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider including reference to Scalia's already notorious, but unsupported, statement that the decision "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." (Boumediene, Scalia, J. dissenting.) Austinmayor (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of a "criticism" section[edit]

A contributor added a "criticism" section, with the edit summary:

first ref might be fringe, the second no way. This article would be blatant WP:NPOV violation without some sort of criticism section.

I encourage this contributor to consider making more effort to engage in helpful dialogue.

Specifically, referring to "first ref" and "second" is very unhelpful. It places the unreasonable and avoidable burden of figuring out which were the first ref, when they left their comment.

I would encourage them to be specific as to their concerns over the article's references.

I am concerned that this note may illustrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the wikipedia's neutrality policy.

I suggest that adding a section to address the reaction of informed commentators is defensible -- might be a good idea -- while adding a section to summarize the opinions of only commentators who are critical can not be justified. Geo Swan (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional References included it regarding this case.[edit]

Additional References included it regarding this case.

BOUMEDIENE et al. v. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., Cornell University Law School, retrieved 2009-12-23

BOUMEDIENE et al. v. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., FindLaw For Legal Professionals, retrieved 2009-12-23

Consejo de Salud Playa de Ponce v Johnny Rullan, Secretary of Health of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (PDF), The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, retrieved 2009-12-23


Justice Black, writing for the plurality, contrasted the cases before him with the Insular Cases, which involved territories "with wholly dissimilar traditions and institutions" that Congress intended to govern only "temporarily." Id., at 14. Justice Frankfurter argued that the "specific circumstances of each particular case" are relevant in determining the geographic scope of the Constitution. Id., at 54 (opinion concurring in result). And Justice Harlan, who had joined an opinion reaching the opposite result in the case in the previous Term, Reid v. Covert, 351 U. S. 487 (1956), was most explicit in rejecting a "rigid and abstract rule" for determining where constitutional guarantees extend. Reid, 354 U. S., at 74 (opinion concurring in result). He read the Insular Cases to teach that whether a constitutional provision has extraterritorial effect depends upon the "particular circumstances, the practical necessities, and the possible alternatives which Congress had before it" and, in particular, whether judicial enforcement of the provision would be "impracticable and anomalous." Id., at 74-75; see also United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 277-278 (1990) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (applying the "impracticable and anomalous" extraterritoriality test in the Fourth Amendment context).

That the petitioners in Reid were American citizens was a key factor in the case and was central to the plurality's conclusion that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments apply to American civilians tried outside the United States. But practical considerations, related not to the petitioners' citizenship but to the place of their confinement and trial, were relevant to each Member of the Reid majority. And to Justices Harlan and Frankfurter (whose votes were necessary to the Court's disposition) these considerations were the decisive factors in the case.

--Seablade (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article on al-Odah v. US?[edit]

The Supreme Court consolidated the case of Al-Odah v. US with Boumediene v. Bush (2008), giving the latter preference in name order, and their June 2008 applies to all the plaintiffs, but there is a separate article under that title, Al-Odah v. US. I didn't think that was appropriate when the cases were consolidated, first. Second, it will be hard to keep the articles reconciled. It does not have the Supreme Court infobox, nor does it seem to follow the format as strictly as this article. It does not seem a good precedent to create a separate article for a consolidated case.Parkwells (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boumediene v. Bush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this still B-class?[edit]

The cites look pretty thorough and I don't see any templates? Any experienced editors with input on what still needs to be done to improve this? Seraphimsystem (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Boumediene v. Bush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boumediene_v._Bush&oldid=1200292336"