Publications & Resources
Search TCP documents by typing a keyword (e.g., author, document title, etc.) into the search box and hitting the search button. Refine your results by selecting from the issues, material types, date range, and committee options listed. You can also browse recent publications and resources below.
Search Results
Mohammed Munaf and Shawqi Omar, two American citizens who were detained by the U.S.-led forces in Iraq, sought to challenge their detention in U.S. federal court through writs of habeas corpus. Amici The Constitution Project and the Rutherford Institute ask the Court to adopt a firm rule that allows American citizens to challenge their detention in federal court whenever they are held in the custody of American officials.
The cases challenge the provision of the Military Commissions Act that stripped detainees at Guantanamo Bay of their right of to challenge their detentions through petitions for writs of habeas corpus. Twenty former judges organized by The Constitution Project filed an amicus brief in support of the detainees' habeas petitions in U.S. court, arguing that federal courts must be allowed to review whether and to what extent detention was based on statements extracted by torture or other impermissible coercion.
The cases challenge the provision of the Military Commissions Act that stripped detainees at Guantanamo Bay of their right of to challenge their detentions through petitions for writs of habeas corpus. Twenty former judges organized by The Constitution Project filed an amicus brief in support of the detainees' habeas petitions in U.S. court, arguing that federal courts must be allowed to review whether and to what extent detention was based on statements extracted by torture or other impermissible coercion.
The cases challenge the provision of the Military Commissions Act that stripped the right of detainees held in the Guantanamo Bay prison to challenge their detentions in federal court through petitions for writs of habeas corpus. The amicus brief by a coalition of NGOs supports the detainees' habeas claims and argues that stripping the detainees of their right to habeas corpus violates the separation of powers.
The cases challenge the provision of the Military Commissions Act that stripped the right of detainees held in the Guantanamo Bay prison to challenge their detentions in federal court through petitions for writs of habeas corpus. The amicus brief by a coalition of NGOs supports the detainees' habeas claims and argues that stripping the detainees of their right to habeas corpus violates the separation of powers.
Mr. Keene testifies that although he agrees our government must and does have the power to detain foreign terrorists to protect national security, repealing federal court jurisdiction over habeas corpus does not serve that goal. He further states that it is crucial that we maintain habeas corpus to ensure that we are detaining the right people and complying with the rule of law.
Mr. Keene testifies that although he agrees our government must and does have the power to detain foreign terrorists to protect national security, repealing federal court jurisdiction over habeas corpus does not serve that goal. He further states that it is crucial that we maintain habeas corpus to ensure that we are detaining the right people and complying with the rule of law.
Mr. Hafetz testifies that Congress must restore habeas corpus as a necessary first step in creating a rights-respecting national security policy.
Mr. Hafetz testifies that Congress must restore habeas corpus as a necessary first step in creating a rights-respecting national security policy.
Mr. Taft testifies that Guantanamo detainees should be allowed to challenge their detentions in federal court through writs of habeas corpus, and that we should follow our practice in previous wars of treating all captured persons in accordance with the Geneva Conventions and the Army Field Manual.
