Boumediene v. Bush

What is the legacy of Guantanamo Bay? 171 men continue to languish there. The Bush torture program has been legitimized by the Obama administration, and indefinite detention has been codified as law.
In one decision from April 2011, Judge Laurence Silberman, a prominent conservative on the D.C. Circuit, blasted the justices
The Supreme Court is expected to decide as soon as Thursday whether it will hear the Latif v. Obama and possibly restore a right to meaningful judicial review for detainees imprisoned in the name of the "war on terror."
Perhaps a decade should have been long enough for the constitutional issues over war on terrorism policies to get settled. That hasn't happened, though.
A sharp rebuke from the Supreme Court has not stopped Lindsey Graham from now attempting a third time to broker yet another deal to deny detainees the right to civilian court review.
Without the rule of law, without fair trials even for the despised, there is nothing else that can be called civilization, nothing else that civilized people can live, fight, or die for.
In briefs, the battle lines have been drawn. On the one hand is the government, endorsing Bush-era policies. And for the Uighurs, there is a Boston-based attorney and his team.
The Obama administration is following Bush's lead by unilaterally rewriting the Geneva Conventions, presumably to allow it to continue exploiting prisoners of war for their supposed intelligence value.
From what I have been able to gather about the workings of Bagram, I have no reason to conclude that the prison is now being run according to the Geneva Conventions.
Sadly, our celebrity-obsessed world is unlikely to pay much attention to the International Day in Support of the Victims of Torture, as the death of Michael Jackson dominates headlines.
Khalid Saad Mohammed seized from a hospital in Pakistan and sold to the U.S. military. But the authorities in GITMO had never managed to build up a credible case against him.
Obama needs to find the courage to resist the shrill opportunism of some of his least principled colleagues, and to order the Uighurs' release into the United States.
Just Binyam Mohamed and the Yemeni doctor, Ayman Batarfi have been cleared for release. At this rate, of course, it will take decades to close Guantánamo.
I'm still erring on the side of presuming that what's going on has more to do with pragmatism than it is with deliberate, coldly conceived policy.
Whereas Gitmo prisoners had, over the years, secured habeas corpus rights, none of these privileges had been extended to the prisoners in Bagram.
Today the court nevertheless appears to conclude that a habeas court lacks authority to order that a non-"enemy combatant
Imagine after six and a half years of this imprisonment -- in which, unlike convicted criminals on the US mainland, you have never been charged or tried, and have not been allowed a single visit from your loved ones.
Need I remind you that President George W. Bush is of the belief that he is allowed to declare anyone to be an "enemy combatant
Parhat v. Gates is another significant challenge to executive overreach. Parhat is one of 18 Uighur detainees who fled persecution in China and was arrested in Pakistan with no evidence against him.
To bolster his argument that the Guantánamo detainees should be denied the right to prove their innocence in federal courts, Scalia relied on stale information that was proven to be false one year ago.