If man, Rasul, was locked away in a
Posted On May 15, 2019
If someone were to look at and examine the sixth amendment it would read that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” However, there are many cases that were brought to the supreme court arguing that this right was violated; and that some people had no trial at all and were sent directly to jail. A similar case would be Rasul v. Bush; this was when a man, Rasul, was locked away in a detention camp without and trail and he says he doesn’t deserve to be held there like that. This case’s court ruling was determined on June 28, 2004; in a 6-3 decision that the judiciary branch had no jurisdicsion in holding people at Guantanamo Bay. On February 22, 2002, the Center for Constitutional Rights picked the initial cases to challenge the unlawful camps at Guantanamo Bay. At that time, the public had been told by the Bush administration that they were “worst of the worst.” The only people who were willing to share any information about the cases with the CCR were death penalty defenders, who had much experience with defending unpopular clients; other organization were completely opposed to joining the CCR. Together, the two teams filed a habeas corpus petition on behalf of the two men;Shafik Rasul and Asif Iqbal, and two other men, David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib. The CCR claimed that holding these men in a detention without a hearing process to determine the accuracy of their imprisonment was unlawful.After the CCR lost multiple battles in lower level courts, they brought the case to the Supreme Court, which was agreed to be heard in November of 2003. The Court also agreed to hear a companion case filed on behalf of a couple of Kuwaitis also being held at Guantanamo Bay, Al Odah v. USA. The Court reviewed the question; “Whether United States courts lack jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba.” The issue was whether U.S. courts have the power to hear a habeas petition from the men that were imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay. Many of the men at Guantanamo Bay had been held isolated since being taken into U.S. custody. The men that had been isolated at Guantanamo Bay had never been charged with anything in the past, nor did they have any pending charges, nor have they ever came before a military, or civilian tribunal;on top of that, they had never been read their rights under any type of law or provided counsel.On June 30, 2004; in a six to three decision,the Supreme Court ruled that all of the men, who were isolated at Guantanamo Bay, did have the right to question their unlawful imprisonment. From then on, the Guantanamo Bay base that was meant to work as a legal loophole was at the mercy of the counsel; as a result, the truth was revealed to the eyes of the world. The CCR reaffirmed the men that were imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay; that every man at Guantanamo Bay was given the opportunity to be defended with the power of the counsel and hundreds of organized pro bono advocates from all over the country, specifically to defend them. The CCR later learned that the different men, who had been imprisoned for varying times, had done nothing more than be in the wrong place at the wrong time, so in effect they were picked up and sold as bounties to U.S. forces. Congress and the Bush administration, would later go on, attempting to limit the rights that the Court had recognized, which would lead to a second successful case before the Supreme Court, Boumediene v. Bush.