Why do Bush supporters not understand the signficance of Boumediene v. Bush?

Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. ___ (2008), was a writ of habeas corpus submission made in a civilian court of the United States on behalf of Lakhdar Boumediene, a naturalized citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, held in military detention by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay detention camps. The case was consolidated with habeas petition Al Odah v. United States. The case challenged the legality of Boumediene’s detention at the Guantanamo Bay military base as well as the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006. Oral arguments on the combined case were heard by the Supreme Court on December 5, 2007. On June 12, 2008, Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the 5-4 majority holding that the prisoners had a right to the habeas corpus under the United States Constitution and that the MCA was an unconstitutional suspension of that right. Along with Rasul v. Bush, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, this is a major case in the Court's controversial detainee jurisprudence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush

Update:

On the 1857 Dred Scott decision supporting slavery: Lincoln supported the decision. The Republicans had to amend the constitution to abolish slavery (the 13th Amendment). Your original constitution allowed slavery (Washington and Jefferson, your founding fathers, were slaveholders). It is not a question of agreeing with or not. It is something you have to work around. Heck even the Australian government is bound by its constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_...

Update 2:

On the 1857 Dred Scott decision supporting slavery: Lincoln supported the decision. The Republicans had to amend the constitution to abolish slavery (the 13th Amendment). Your original constitution allowed slavery (Washington and Jefferson your founding fathers were slaveholders).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_...

9 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Republicans think they are above the law!

    That is one of the reasons why I think we need a new 911 investigation to detemine whether or not Bush,Cheney and Rumsfeld should be charged with derelictionof duty!

  • 1 decade ago

    Because the Supreme Court never gave clear instructions on what would be legal. Also, Democrats have no intention on drafting a replacement---hence why all tribunals are on hold.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The supreme court has a history of being wrong, this is another example. Terrorist captured on the battlefield do not have rights as US citizens. They are enemy combatants.

    The supreme court supported slavery too. Do you support that decision?

  • Kikki
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    Not a Bush supporter, BUT we do not extend our Constitutional rights including US Justice system Habeas Corpus to non-citizens. Why do liberals not understand the action of the Supreme Court acting as advocates for terrorists and war criminals is UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Conservatives on answers dont like to answer questions that are not leading questions negative of the current president.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Yawn. The cons just want to chop off Hasans balls as quick as possible

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    They don't look at law like they look at their own ideology.

    Rights and freedom don't apply to people governed by irrational thought.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    OMG was gonna ask the same question!!! Beyond me...

  • 1 decade ago

    blah blah blah blah blah

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.