Talk:Boumediene v. Bush
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| High | This article has been assessed as High-importance on the assessment scale. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Top | This article is on a subject of Top-importance within WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. |
| Info | This article contains an accurate infobox. |
 |
This article needs attention from a member of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases. |
Contents |
[edit] We need a better source
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)
[edit] Attention?
Ok, i'm on it; give me a few days to mull it over. JeanLatore (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Facts
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)
- 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)
[edit] Johnson v. Eisentrager
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)
[edit] Kennedy's position
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)
[edit] the writing of this article
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)
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)
