Case brief aclu byniam mohamed

Disponible uniquement sur Etudier
  • Pages : 2 (404 mots )
  • Téléchargement(s) : 0
  • Publié le : 3 avril 2011
Lire le document complet
Aperçu du document
The Binyam Mohamed case can be devided in two parts : The first one is about the Supreme Court decision stating that the military commissions in Guantánamo Bay were unconstitutional in the Hamdam v.Rumsfeld case, and the second one refers to the proceeding against Japesen Dataplan, a Boeing subsidiary accused of arranging flights for CIA.
We saw in your mail that you already have all the factsin mind, we do not need to clarify one of them.

As you know, Binyam Mohamed was detained on Guantánamo, waiting to be judged by a military commission. The US Supreme Court put rule on 29 June 2006,rulling in the Hamdan case that the military commissions in Guantánamo Bay were unconstitutional. The court identified salient flaws in the process - holding parts of the trial without the defendant,using secret evidence against him, hand-picking the tribunal, making up the rules as you go along, and so forth. So the Supreme Court held that Binyam Mohammed won't get convicted and sentenced toyears in prison by a military con-mission: he'll just rot in Guantánamo without a trial of any kind.
Translated, this means that even if the military cannot conduct tribunals under the rules it madeup, it can simply hold the prisoners without trial until the "war on terror" is over. The governement is so ententitled to keep arbitraly in jail whoever it wants.

After he was freed, Binyam Mohamedwith us, the American Civil Liberties Union, start proceeding in 2009 against Jappesen Dataplan arguing that they organised illegal rendition for the CIA. The US Government intervened claiming thatthe subject matter of the case was a state secret and thus covered by the cloak of legal privilege. The District Court agreed and dismissed the case.
Binyam and the other Claimants appealed and onthe 28th April 2009, the US Court of Appeals reversed the decision, stating that each piece of evidence must be weighed separately as to the ‘danger’ it would pose if made public and that the case...