From my knowledge, the habeas corpus can be suspended in times of rebellion and danger of public health and safety. Wouldn't this be ground to ultimately suspend the habeas corpus in Bush's favor? (Suspension Clause found in Article One, Section 9, clause 2).

I'm not siding with either Boumediene or Bush in this case. I'm simply curious as to how this ruling was established.

  • 3
    This has nothing to do with history, but is a question of US law. – Lennart Regebro Nov 20 '13 at 6:21
  • The study of history naturally ventures into many areas, in order to best interpret past events and learn the best lessons for he future. I voted to keep this one open, though I can see it sits in the grey area. – Pieter Geerkens Nov 20 '13 at 21:56

2001-2008 was not a time of rebellion and danger of public health and safety. The arguments of the court can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush#Opinion_of_the_Court

He was not acquitted of his charges, as he was never charged with anything. (That's the whole point, if he had been arrested and charged with something, his habeas corpus would not have been violated).

He was detained because he knew Bensayah Belkacem, who was detained for the heinous crime of making a lot of telephone calls to Afghanistan.

| improve this answer | |

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.