In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two important decisions regarding President Bush’s designation of Guantanamo detainees as unlawful enemy combatants. What were they and what were their implications?
What will be an ideal response?
In 2004, in Rasul v. Bush, the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal courts had jurisdiction to consider applications for habeas corpus from 2Australian citizens and 12 Kuwaiti citizens detained at Guantánamo who had been captured in Afghanistan during hostilities between the United States and the Taliban and al-Qaeda. In the companion case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court held that Esam Fouad Hamdi, an American citizen who had been detained in Afghanistan while allegedly fighting for the Taliban, was entitled to a hearing to determine whether he was an enemy combatant.
You might also like to view...
Which of the following is a NOT a right of probationers and parolees?
a. The right to see and hear evidence against them b. The right to confront witnesses against them c. The right to Miranda warnings given by probation and parole officers d. A hearing panel made up of neutral members
Coroners today are required to be physicians with training in pathology
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
The police are noted to have carried revolvers on their person as far back as the ______.
a. 1770s b. 1820s c. 1850s d. 1920s
The purpose of a ________ is to assemble words and pictures to create a pattern surrounding an event
Fill in the blank(s) with correct word