Does Boumediene v. Bush Apply in Afghanistan? According to SCOTUSblog writer Lyle Denniston, it could,if three judges on a D.C. Circuit Court panel agree with the petitioners in Al-Maqaleh v. Gates (Circuit docket 09-5265). In his post, Denniston writes that tomorrow morning the D.C. Circuit Court panel will hear oral arguments on whether the ruling in Boumediene v. Bush can apply to detentions at a U. S. military prison in Afghanistan, to test ongoing detention there. The petitioners, Fadi Al-Maqaleh, Amin Al-Bakri, and Redha Al-Najar, all contend that they are not enemy combatants and seek to challenge their continued detention through habeas cases in
a U. S. District Court in Washington. A federal judge has ruled that
those cases may go ahead. Denniston writes that appeal in U. S. District Court has been blocked while the Circuit Court hears a government appeal from a ruling in their favor last April. The Obama Administration argues in its opening brief that this case is different from Boumediene because the case deals with claimed rights of detainees who are being held in the midst of an "active war zone" far from U. S. shores. At Politico, Josh Gernstein also comments on the case and the "curious" fact that Principal Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal will be arguing for the Administration. Neal Katyal is the same man that successfully argued in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that the military commissions set up by the Bush Administration violated federal law and the Geneva Conventions.
Three Executions Scheduled for Early 2010: Doug Berman reports on his blog -- Sentencing Law and Policy that three defendants are scheduled to be executed in three different states on Thursday, January 7. According to the Death Penalty Information Center's website, Abdullah Sharif Kaazim Mahdi is scheduled for execution in Ohio, Gerald Bordelon has volunteered for execution in Louisiana, and Kenneth Mosley will be executed in Texas. Berman writes that there is "a good chance that none of the executions will be stayed."
Manuel Noriega's Supreme Court Appeal Raises MCA Issues: At Volokh Conspiracy, John Elwood writes that among the cases that the Supreme Court has re-listed for consideration at private conference, none has been re-listed more often than Manuel Noriega v. Pastrana (09-35). In his post, Elwood speculates that the former Panamanian general's appeal may have been re-listed "a whopping eight times" because it raises the issue of whether §5(a) of the Military Commissions Act prohibits Noriega from invoking the Third Geneva Convention in any habeas petition. Noriega is appealing the Eleventh Circuit's decision that "[n]o person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action," and Elwood believes that the Supreme Court's delay could be because a Justice is writing a dissent from denial of certiorari. It could also be because someone is writing a concurrence in a denial of certiorari, "and the concurrence and dissent are busy trading barbs." If this is true, it will be interesting to see what each Justice has to say about the applicability of §5(a) to "enemy combatants" and P.O.W's like Noriega.
Three Executions Scheduled for Early 2010: Doug Berman reports on his blog -- Sentencing Law and Policy that three defendants are scheduled to be executed in three different states on Thursday, January 7. According to the Death Penalty Information Center's website, Abdullah Sharif Kaazim Mahdi is scheduled for execution in Ohio, Gerald Bordelon has volunteered for execution in Louisiana, and Kenneth Mosley will be executed in Texas. Berman writes that there is "a good chance that none of the executions will be stayed."
Manuel Noriega's Supreme Court Appeal Raises MCA Issues: At Volokh Conspiracy, John Elwood writes that among the cases that the Supreme Court has re-listed for consideration at private conference, none has been re-listed more often than Manuel Noriega v. Pastrana (09-35). In his post, Elwood speculates that the former Panamanian general's appeal may have been re-listed "a whopping eight times" because it raises the issue of whether §5(a) of the Military Commissions Act prohibits Noriega from invoking the Third Geneva Convention in any habeas petition. Noriega is appealing the Eleventh Circuit's decision that "[n]o person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action," and Elwood believes that the Supreme Court's delay could be because a Justice is writing a dissent from denial of certiorari. It could also be because someone is writing a concurrence in a denial of certiorari, "and the concurrence and dissent are busy trading barbs." If this is true, it will be interesting to see what each Justice has to say about the applicability of §5(a) to "enemy combatants" and P.O.W's like Noriega.
Leave a comment