Contents: (1) Intro.; (2) Early Developments in the Detention and Trial of Enemy Combatants Captured in the ¿War on Terror¿: Rasul v. Bush; Combatant Status Review Tribunals; (3) Pre-Boumediene v. Bush Court Challenges to the Detention Policy: Khalid v. Bush; In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases; Hamdan v. Rumsfeld; Al-Marri; (4) Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA); (5) The Mil. Comm. Act of 2006 (MCA): Provisions Affecting Court Jurisdiction; Provisions Re: the Geneva Conventions; (6) Post-MCA Issues and Developments: Possible Application to U.S. Citizens; DTA Challenges to Detention; (7) Boumediene v. Bush: Constitutional Right to Habeas; Adequacy of Habeas Corpus Substitute; Implications of Boumediene; (8) Exec. Order to Close Guantanamo and Halt Mil. Commission Proceed.; (9) Redefining U.S. Detention Authority; (10) Constitutional Considerations and Options for Congress; Scope of Challenges; Congressional Authority over Fed. Courts; Separation of Powers Issues; (11) Conclusion: Nat. Def. Author. Provisions; Habeas Corpus Amend.; Bills to Regulate Detention. Figures.

After the U.S. Supreme Court held that U.S. courts have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to hear legal challenges on behalf of persons detained at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in connection with the war against terrorism (Rasul v. Bush), the Pentagon established administrative hearings, called "Combatant Status Review Tribunals" (CSRTs), to allow the detainees to contest their status as enemy combatants, and informed them of their right to pursue relief in federal court by seeking a writ of habeas corpus. Lawyers subsequently filed dozens of petitions on behalf of the detainees in the District Court for the District of Columbia, where district court judges reached inconsistent conclusions as to whether the detainees have any enforceable rights to challenge their treatment and detention. In December 2005, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA) to divest the courts of jurisdiction to hear some detainees' challenges by eliminating the federal courts' statutory jurisdiction over habeas claims by aliens detained at Guantanamo Bay (as well as other causes of action based on their treatment or living conditions). The DTA provides instead for limited appeals of CSRT determinations or final decisions of military commissions. After the Supreme Court rejected the view that the DTA left it without jurisdiction to review a habeas challenge to the validity of military commissions in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the 109th Congress enacted the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) (P.L. 109-366) to authorize the President to convene military commissions and to amend the DTA to further reduce access to federal courts by "alien enemy combatants," wherever held, by eliminating pending and future causes of action other than the limited review of military proceedings permitted under the DTA. In June 2008, the Supreme Court held in the case of Boumediene v. Bush that aliens designated as enemy combatants and detained at Guantanamo Bay have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus. The Court also found that MCA § 7, which limited judicial review of executive determinations of the petitioners' enemy combatant status, did not provide an adequate habeas substitute and therefore acted as an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas. The immediate impact of the Boumediene decision is that detainees at Guantanamo may petition a federal district court for habeas review of the legality and possibly the circumstances of their detention, perhaps including challenges to the jurisdiction of military commissions.

The U.S. has captured and detained numerous persons believed to have been part of or assoc. with enemy forces. This report discusses major judicial opinions concerning suspected enemy belligerents detained in the conflict with Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Addresses all Supreme Court decisions concerning enemy combatants. Discusses notable circuit court opinions addressing issues of ongoing relevance to U.S. detention policy. Addresses a few notable decisions by fed. district courts that are the subject of ongoing litigation. Describes a few fed. court rulings in criminal cases involving persons who were either involved in the 9/11 attacks or were captured abroad by U.S. forces during operations against Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and assoc. entities.

After the U.S. Supreme Court held that U.S. courts have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. & 2241 to hear legal challenges on behalf of persons detained at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in connection with the war against terrorism (Rasul v. Bush), the Pentagon established administrative hearings, called "Combatant Status Review Tribunals" (CSRTs), to allow the detainees to contest their status as enemy combatants, and informed them of their right to pursue relief in federal court by seeking a writ of habeas corpus. Lawyers subsequently filed dozens of petitions on behalf of the detainees in the District Court for the District of Columbia, where district court judges reached inconsistent conclusions as to whether the detainees have any enforceable rights to challenge their treatment and detention. In December 2005, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA) to divest the courts of jurisdiction to hear some detainees' challenges by eliminating the federal courts' statutory jurisdiction over habeas claims by aliens detained at Guantanamo Bay (as well as other causes of action based on their treatment or living conditions). The DTA provided instead for limited appeals of CSRT determinations or final decisions of military commissions. After the Supreme Court rejected the view that the DTA left it without jurisdiction to review a habeas challenge to the validity of military commissions in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the 109th Congress enacted the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) (P.L. 109-366) to authorize the President to convene military commissions and to amend the DTA to further reduce access to federal courts by "lien enemy combatants," wherever held, by eliminating pending and future causes of action other than the limited review of military proceedings permitted under the DTA.

After the U.S. Supreme Court held that U.S. courts have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ʹ 2241 to hear legal challenges on behalf of persons detained at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in connection with the war against terrorism (Rasul v. Bush), the Pentagon established administrative hearings, called [beta]Combatant Status Review Tribunals[gamma] (CSRTs), to allow the detainees to contest their status as enemy combatants, and informed them of their right to pursue relief in federal court by seeking a writ of habeas corpus. Lawyers subsequently filed dozens of petitions on behalf of the detainees in the District Court for the District of Columbia, where district court judges reached inconsistent conclusions as to whether the detainees have any enforceable rights to challenge their treatment and detention. It will be updated as events warrant.

When Enemy Combatant was first published in the United States in hardcover in 2006 it garnered sensational reviews, and its author was featured in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, on National Public Radio, and on ABC News. A second generation British Muslim, Begg had been held by the U.S. military for more than three years before being released without charge in January of 2005. His memoir is the first published account by a Guantánamo detainee of life inside the infamous prison. Writing in the Washington Post Book World, Jane Mayer described Enemy Combatant as “fascinating . . . Begg provides some ideological counterweight to the one-sided spin coming from the U.S. government. He writes passionately and personally, stripping readers of the comforting lie that somehow the detainees aren't really like us, with emotional attachments, intellectual interests and fully developed humanity.” Recommended by the Financial Times and Tikkun magazine and a ColorLines Editors' Pick of Post-9/11 Books, Enemy Combatant is “a forcefully told, up-to-the-minute political story . . . necessary reading for people on all sides of the issue” (Publishers Weekly, starred review).