•  
  •  
 

St. Thomas Law Review

First Page

77

Document Type

Article

Abstract

This article concludes that, based on previous interpretations of the reach of the Constitution beyond U.S. borders, only the Fifth Amendment right to Due Process applies to Guantanamo Bay detainees, and that any other constitutional rights, such as the right to counsel or confrontation, must arise from the Due Process clause, rather than the independent rights protected by the Sixth Amendment. Part Two of this article will take an in-depth look at the decisions in Khalid and In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases, examining their reasoning and the similarities and differences in their conclusions. It will focus exclusively on the constitutional claims of the petitioners, and parse the legal reasoning utilized by Judges Leon and Green in their decisions. Part Three begins with an examination of the historical reach of the Constitution beyond the borders of the United States, focusing on the differences between the treatment of citizens and noncitizens, as well as the distinction between U.S. territories and foreign countries. During the course of this examination, it will also focus on several historical cases, spanning from the 1890's through the Cold War, including the two major military tribunal cases that arose out of World War II: Ex parte Quirin and Johnson v. Eisentrager. It then concludes with the all-important question of the status of Guantanamo Bay. Finally, Part Four moves on to the central question of which rights apply to the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. It examines the Fifth Amendment right to Due Process and the Sixth Amendment rights to counsel and the right to be present during the entire course of one's hearing.

Download

Share

COinS