A method of interrogation that is used here, and many other prisons and detainee camps, is enhanced interrogation. Enhanced interrogation has been used for many years to obtain information from prisoners, but these methods should be banned because they are ineffective, torturous and have long lasting effects on the prisoners. After the 9/11 attacks the Bush Administration decided to capture convicted terrorists and bring them back to the US as “detainees,” so that they could not be protected under the Geneva Convention (Mayer). While doing this the US began establishing “black site” prison camps oversees so that they were out of reach of the US law. At the time José Rodriguez was head of the CIA and he began arguing that torturing towards the detainees was necessary to prevent further terrorist attacks.
Iranians saw the asylum granted by the U.S. as American complicity in the atrocities the Shah had committed. In the United States, the hostage-taking was seen as an egregious violation of the principles of international law which granted diplomats immunity from arrest and diplomatic compounds' inviolability. [4][5] The hostage crisis reached a climax when, after failed attempts to negotiate a release of the hostages, the United States military attempted a rescue operation using ships such as the USS Nimitz and USS Coral
Alfonzo then appealed arrest and said this law is unconstitutional Lopez believed that the laws went past the power of the United States Congress. His first defense failed and the court ruled and said that Congress had the right and authority to regulate school activities throughout the United States. Alfonzo was convicted for carrying a weapon to school. Then Alfonzo appealed the initial decision and then he brought the case to the Fifth Circuit of Appeals which is a court composed of seventeen active judges John Minor Wisdom United States Court of Appeal which is located in New Orleans, Louisiana. Alfonzo once again claimed that Commerce Clause which is basically where Congress is granted separate power, which Alfonzo thought was a direct violation of the Constitution Of The Unites States.
The Abu Ghraib prison was a prison located in Iraq. The prison was built by the British and was approximately the size of a small town, the prison was originally used by Saddam Hussein who tortured and detained prisoners based on a wide range of reasons. Some of the detainees included politics and religious leaders. During the 21st century Saddam Hussein had a lot of turmoil with the US forces and other forces, which eventually lead him to release all of his prisoners by on October 2002. Once the US troops took over Iraq they reinstated the prison and this time they held Iraqi rebels and terrorists.
As a result, courts often look for signs that Congress has either supported or opposed the President’s actions and rest their decisions on statutory grounds. (Bradley,2010). When people are caught that have harmed or attempted to harm Americas then I do feel that they need to be punished and held until they have served their time or until they can be placed in a prison somewhere else if Guantanamo Bay is closed. In the days immediately following the 11 September 2001 attacks on the USA, the Bush Administration implemented several measures to respond to what it interpreted as acts of war. President Bush proclaimed a national state of emergency.
Iraq Prison Scandal In the year 2003 The Bush administration justified and led the American people into war with Iraq. The White house reported claims that Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, had weapons of mass destruction and that the people of Iraq were living under brutal dictatorship from their leader. Ostensibly the war was to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and eviscerate and remnants of Alqaeda and its affiliates. The war mongers of both sides (democrats and republicans), wanted someone or something to blame for 9/11. After selling their lies and plans for the war to the America people, congress had given President Bush carte blanche to bring justice to those who caused pain and destruction on American soil.
When evaluating the President’s relationship in regards to habeas corpus, one must first consider whether or not the President even has the right to confine individuals. “Absent a military conflict, the answer is likely no, whereas when Congress specifically authorizes detention, the answer is certainly yes” (Howe, 2014, p. 678). After 9/11, Congress had passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). AUMF allowed the President to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organization or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons” (Howe, 2014, p. 678). No matter what AUMF says however, one thing that it does not clearly state is whether or not the President is allowed to confine individuals.
Security forces moving detainees to permanent housing at Camp Delta from Camp X-Ray The basic proposition here is that somebody who comes into the United States of America illegally, who conducts a terrorist operation killing thousands of innocent Americans, men, women, and children, is not a lawful combatant. They don’t deserve to be treated as a prisoner of war. They don’t deserve the same guarantees and safeguards that would be used for an American citizen going through the normal judicial process . . .
They argued, however, that because Miranda had been convicted of a crime in the past, he must have been aware of his rights. The Arizona Supreme Court denied his appeal and upheld his conviction. Miranda then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed his case in 1966 (Miranda v. Arizona). Decision The Warren Court argued February 28 – March 2, 1966 Did not decide until June 13, 1966 There were 5 votes for Miranda and 4 votes against Chief Justice Warren, ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda's confession as evidence in a criminal trial because “the police had failed to first inform
Case Brief Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch (5U.S.) 137, 2 L.Ed.60 (1803) Court: United States Supreme Court Judicial History: William Marbury brought his suit to the U.S Supreme Court seeking a writ of mandamus from the court. Thus directing James Madison, the Secretary of State, to accept the remaining commissions signed by former president, John Adams. Mandamus was not requested by lower courts because the U.S Supreme court had the jurisdiction to bring forth such actions, under the Judicial Act of 1789. Hence the case was never reviewed by lower courts.