Why the Court Said No: The Supreme Court’s Continued Opposition to Bush Administration Guantanamo Bay Policy
Date
2009-05
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
University of Delaware
Abstract
In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, actions taken
by the presidential administration of George W. Bush fundamentally undermined the
rule of law. This thesis examines a selection of these illegal actions within the context
of the detention facility at the United States Military Base of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
It was through the treatment of alleged terrorists held at the base that the Bush
administration flaunted both the spirit and text of the law. By acting unilaterally,
without the support of Congress, the President increased the authority of the
presidency while attempting to undercut the traditional checks on power that have
defined the United States federal government. Eventually, it was only the United
States Supreme Court, in Rasul v. Bush (2004), Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), and
Boumediene v. Bush (2008) that was willing to defy its traditional deference towards a
wartime president and restore the rule of law.