Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:32:21.205Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Munaf v. Geren. 128 S.Ct. 2007

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Harlan Grant Cohen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 102 , Issue 4 , October 2008 , pp. 854 - 859
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 128 S.Ct. 2207 (2008), reprinted in 47 ILM 708 (2008).

2 Mohammed v. Harvey, 456 F.Supp.2d 115 (D.D.C. 2006), aff’d sub nom. Munaf v. Geren, 482 F.3d 582 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

3 Omar v. Harvey, 416 F.Supp.2d 19 (D.D.C. 2006), aff’d, 479 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2007)

4 Munaf had originally settled in Romania. See Brief for the Habeas Petitioners at 9 -10, at <http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07–08/07–394_PetitionerHabeas.pdf>.

5 Quoting In re Hikmat, No. 19/Pub. Comm’n/2007, at 5 (Ct. Cass. Feb. 19, 2008).

6 338 U.S. 197 (1948).

7 Id. at 198.

8 Omar, 479 F.3d at 7–8 (quoting Hirota, 338 U.S. at 198).

9 Munaf v. Geren, 482 F.3d 582, 582–83 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

10 For more on the Hirota decision, see Stephen, I. Vladeck Deconstructing Hirota: Habeas Corpus, Citizenship, and Article III , 95 Geo. L.J. 1497, 1499–1502, 1505–18 (2007).Google Scholar

11 Before moving on to the merits, the Court held that the district court in Omar had abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction without considering the likelihood of Omar’s success on the merits. As a result, had the Court not gone on to reach the merits, the rulings in both cases would have been vacated and remanded (p. 2219).

12 The FARR Act, Pub. L. No. 105–277,112 Stat. 2681 (1998), implements provisions of the UN Convention Against Torture into U.S. law.

13 Still open following the decision is whether Hirota would preclude jurisdiction after a conviction by a “foreign tribunal.” The Court sidestepped the issue after Munaf’s conviction was thrown out, but Omar and Munaf may, in time, be convicted.

14 Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S.Ct. 2229 (2008). A case report by Robert Chesney appears in this issue of the Journal.

15 This test may reflect concerns that the UN mandates and multinational coalitions under which U.S. forces increasingly operate—in Iraq, the Balkans, or Afghanistan—could become legal fictions insulating all detentions abroad from judicial review. Similar issues were raised regarding the United Kingdom’s involvement in MNF-I in R (Al-Jedda) v. Secretary of State for Defence, [2007] UKHL 58 (reported by Alexander Orakhelashvili at 102 AJIL 337 (2008)).

16 Boumediene, 128 S.Ct. at 2252.

17 Id. at 2261–62.

18 350 F.Supp.2d 28 (D.D.C. 2004). The case was dismissed after he was transferred to the United States for trial. Abu All v. Gonzales, 387 F.Supp.2d 16, 20 (D.D.C. 2005); see also Vladeck, supra note 10, at 1532–34.

19 Of course, the actual custody in Munaf was much more obvious, with Americans subject to the chain of command as immediate custodian. Moreover, claims like Abu Ali’s may be seriously diminished by Munaf ‘s decision on the merits. See infra notes 21–23 and accompanying text.

20 This deference is a stark contrast with the position of European Court of Human Rights, which recently reaffirmed its own obligation to review diplomatic assurances regarding torture. See Saadi v. Italy, App. No. 37201/06, para. 148 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Feb. 28, 2008) (reported by Fiona de Londras at 102 AJIL 616 (2008)).

21 See, e.g., Brief of Non-governmental Organizations as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioners at 6, at <http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07–08/07–394_OmarMunafAmCuNonGovtlOrgs.pdf>.

22 350 F.Supp.2d 28; see supra notes 18–19 and accompanying text.

23 See, e.g., Belbacha v. Bush, 520 F.3d 452 (D.C. Cir. 2008).