Boumediene V. Bush IRAC Method

Boumediene V. Bush IRAC Method


BoumedieneV. Bush IRAC Method

Boumedienev. Bush IRAC METHOD

IRACmethod is a tool that can assist the students in evaluation andcomprehension of information that is fundamental for them to makevaluable decisions. IRAC is an acronym that presents issue, rule,analysis, and a conclusion. Though it is a legal method in evaluatinghypothetical situations in law cases it is by no means limited tocase of studying the law. It can be applicable in case studiespresented in diverse mediums such as video/films, narratives orrecording. It may also be used to other activities such asdemonstrating a concept or defining a term, relationship, principle,analogy or a contrasting idea. The instructional focus is integral tothe end results of the case study discussions rather the way ofwalking through an approach or a method used by student in analysisof a case. The paper aims to present Boumediene v. Bush case throughutilization of IRAC method in deconstructing a judicial opinion. Themerits of the argument are assessed.



Thereare diverse questions that can be presented in the case. They includethe following:

  • Should the court have an interpretation of 2006 MCA to mean they cannot have any jurisdiction over petition of habeas corpus that was filed by the foreigners detained at the extra-territorial bases such as Guantanamo Bay?

  • If the answer to the question above is to the affirmative, is the 2006 MCA in violation of the clause of constitutional suspension?

  • Are the detainees in the Guantanamo bay entitled to the 5th amendment protection void of the due process of consideration and law of conventions in Geneva?

  • Do the detainees have to invoke provision of judicial review first or can they challenge them on the basis of merit before the actual review?

  • Irrespective of whether the detainees have a right over the suspension clause in the constitution, are the review tribunal combatant status and DC court review circuit as presented by detainee treatment act an effective and adequate substitute for the habeas constitutional rights?


Thealiens are the combatant and have the rights to habeas corpus underthe constitution and the procedures that are substituted by thecongress were not effective and sufficient. The constitution framersbelieved that it was a fundamental tenet to enjoy the freedom fromunlawful restrain. The suspension clause protects this providing thatmany will be suspended in case of threats to the public safety asinvasion or rebellion.

Whilethe geographical degree to which clauses covers, the writ is unclear.To the least, it is obvious that the write as it was during theratification and drafting of the constitution was protected. Thestate pleads that United States does not have the sovereignty overincarceration areas namely the Guantanamo bay and thus, thepetitioners lacks the right under the clause. Nevertheless, it isclear that Guantanamo bay was under the control of United States forover a hundred years. To decide whether is covered under the clausethere are three fundamentals that are considered

  • Status and citizenship of the detainee and whether status determination was through a sufficient and valid process

  • The place where later detention and first apprehension occurred

  • Practical setbacks in determining whether the prisoners have right to writ

Thepetitioners in the first place are aliens and are arrested outsideUnited States. The center for detention is under complete control ofthe United States and is under a jurisdiction. The costs that wereinvolved are not as such in ruling the habeas proceedings. Theconclusion is the clause act accordingly and effective at Guantanamobay. The commission of 2006 of the military us was not in intentionto substitute habeas corpus. The petitioners are dispute entitled forthe lawfulness of their whole detention by filling a rite(cornell, 2007)


Thedetainees argue that the MCA fails to appeal to jurisdiction ofhabeas in detaining habeas cases were postponed when MCA wereenacted. The detainees maintain that the section 7 (b) of the MCAfails to articulate the unambiguous and a specific directive torepeal the jurisdiction of habeas since among the other reasons, thissection fails to mention specifically the pending cases.Nevertheless, the state point to section 7 (b) eliminates thejurisdiction over all the habeas petitions without exception. The lower court indeed, the court opinion of Boumediene said thatthe intention of the Congress in drafting MCA was obvious and clearalmost as if the proponents of the words were slamming their fistsshouting. When all is said, it is said without exception.

Violationof Suspension Clause by MCA

Theargument of the detainees was that the MCA violated the suspensionclause which states that the right of the habeas corpus shall not inany case be suspended unless in the case of invasion or rebellionthe safety of the public may require it. Since there are no invasionsor rebellion to justify habeas corpus suspension, the MCA do violatethe constitution. The government will counter the invasion orrebellion refers to the emergencies inside U.S. and the presentterrorist threats act as an emergency. The government still arguesthat the suspension clause omission for the oversea operations of themilitary presents a clause that fails to apply to the aliens that aredetained outside United States.

SuspensionClause to the Detainees

Thedetainees argue that, the suspension clause is applicable to themunder INS v. St. Cyr, since the common habeas corpus writ in1989 would be extended to them. The Supreme Court announced that theabsolute minimum, the clause protects the writ of 1979 when it wasratified. In regard to the position, the detainees state thatanalysis of Rasul’s of English case prior to the 1789 thatdemonstrated the writ was available to aliens held outside theterritory of the English sovereign in areas that are subject tocontrol of Crown de facto. In their brief amicus, the legalhistorians present that the English courts in India were issued withwrite prior to assertion of Britain of the formal sovereignty.

Inresponse the government argue that the removal of the MCA overdetainees jurisdiction habeas application is consistent with habeascorpus scope as it existed in 1789. The 1789 writ is maintained bythe government that the writ is applicable to the sovereignterritories and not the areas where the country exercised their defacto control. The state argues that United States does not exercisetheir sovereignty over Guantanamo since the pursuant to the leaseterms US recognized the ultimate sovereignty of Cuba over that area.Since the United States exercise no sovereignty over Guantanamo, thewrit common in history would not be available to the aliens that weredetained there.

Inaddition, the government will content that the common writ law ofhabeas excluded the prisoners of war. Though the detainees ofGuantanamo are not war prisoners under the Geneva Convention, thegovernment claims that the enemy designation of the combatant wallswithin the confines of the common law is understood in regard to theprisoners war. In addition, the government is in argument that Rasulis not applicable to the case of detainees since it addressed thestatutory writ only that existed in 1789 and failed to address thelaw suit

DTAsubstitute remedy

Thegovernment argues that DTA and CSRTs review provide a sufficient andan effective substitute if the detainees have the rights under thesuspension clause. The detainees disagree since the CRTS wereestablished by the military. If the congress rights are removed bythe military, the Congress must grant an effective and an adequatesubstitute. In addition, the detainees argue that CSRTs and review ofDTA fall short habeas protection. CSRTs are not independent since itsmembers are part of the military chain command which could be subjectto superiors influence. The detainees in particular allege that theofficials of the government pressured CSRTs panels in changing thedetermination that the detainees were not combatants of the enemy.

Finally,in the analysis, the court dismissed claims of Boumediene on theground that he was not a citizen where he was detained at the extraterritorial base where he was entitled to the same constitutionprotections that were afforded to someone or United States origin.The court of appeal in US affirmed the ruling by it was reversed byU.S.S.C and indicated that the foreign nationals have a right tochallenge their enemy combatant in court. The congress passed themilitary commission act that stripped the federal court off theauthority to hear the case of corpus habeas from detainees classifiedas enemy combatants as a means to circumvent the ruling of theSupreme Court


Thecase was imperative because it enshrined the precedents that even thecombatants of the enemy have the rights of habeas corpus and theycannot be denied indefinitely due process under the constitution justbecause they are not citizens. However, it should be noted that thatthe federal government maintains a considerable amount of latitude inregard to the practices that concerns the detainment of the enemy inthe extra-territorial settings

Thepractices such as rendition complicate the issue further. Thedecision of the court about Boumediene v. Bush may determinewhether the suspension of the MCA violates the law. Also, the issueis whether the constitutional rights of the detainees under theclause of suspension and if so, DTA and CSRTs review are adequate andimperative substitutes for habeas detainee’s rights. If thedecision of the government would sufficiently end the current pendingand future claims of habeas by non citizens who were held inGuantanamo, the war time of the military through alignment of threebranches will be behind detention policies of Guantanamo Bay.

Conversely,the decision that favors detainees could be limiting of the war timepowers of the military to expand the scope of the judicial review offuture and current detainees of the habeas claims. Irrespective ofthe outcome, the decision will feasibly be imperative in classifyingthe scope of the military war time powers and detainees rights(cornell, 2007).


cornell.(2007, December 5). Boumedienev. Bush (06-1195) Al Odah v. United States (06-1196.Retrieved from Legal Information