Kiyemba+v.+Obama

==//**[|Kiyemba]**//**[| back to lower court]** **[|Circuit Court opinion vacated]**- The oral argument is scheduled for March 23rd "The Supreme Court on Monday ordered the D.C. Circuit Court to take a new look at the case testing federal judges’ powers to order Guantanamo Bay detainees released from custody — a case the Justices had granted and were to hear later this month. In a brief order, without noted dissent, the Court said the Circuit Court was to decide “what further proceedings in that court or in the District Court are necessary and appropriate for the full and final disposition of the case in light of…new developments.” The case is //Kiyemba, et al., v. Obama,// et al. (08-1234). The “new developments” are offers to resettle the seven Chinese Muslim Uighurs remaining at Guantanamo. " For the full story- http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/03/kiyemba-back-to-lower-court/ ==

This provides a insight into the background of Jamal Abdullah Kiyemba. It states how he was raised as a roman catholic and then later found comfort in Islam. The entire story puts a lot into perspective for the case- Part I "Jamal Kiyemba's long journey home"

http://j.modjeska.us/?p=138

I thought this was kind of interesting... the attorney information. Not really sure what we could do with it exactly but it's interesting to have their contact information so close by! Attorneys for Petitioners: Sabin Willett Bingham McCutcheon LLP (617) 951-8000 One Federal Street Boston, MA 02110 Party name: Jamal Kiyemba, et al.

http://onthedocket.org/cases/2009/kiyemba-v-obama

 Here is another like which provides a brief synopsis, description, and timeline of the case. All of the information is relatively recent. The site also contains an allotment of press releases, supreme court documents, and circuit court documents all under attached files AT THE BOTTOM.

http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/kiyemba-v.-bush

The official Supreme Court Case number and actual text of the question, as pulled from the Supreme Court records on their website //08-1234 KIYEMBA V. OBAMA DECISION BELOW:581 F. Supp.2d 33 LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 08-5424 QUESTIONS PRESENTED:␣␣ Whether a federal court exercising its habeas jurisdiction, as confirmed by Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. ___, 128 S. Ct. 2229 (2008), has no power to order the release of prisoners held by the Executive for seven years, where the Executive detention is indefinite and without authorization in law, and release into the continental United States is the only possible effective remedy.//

Here is a [|synopsis of Kiyemba v. Bush] from the Center for Constitutional Rights. The key paragraph is: "//Kiyemba v. Obama// is a habeas corpus petition filed in the D.C. District Court on behalf of 17 innocent Uighur men who have been imprisoned in Guantánamo Bay for almost seven years. The government acknowledged as early as 2003 that the imprisoned Uighurs were improperly detained and eligible for release. They remain imprisoned because a transfer to China would be illegal as they would be at grave risk of torture or other forms of persecution; and the US government has both refused to accept the men into the US and been unwilling or unable to find other countries willing to accept them."

Here is the ABA link to all the briefs in [|Kiyemba v. Bush.]

OOPS. We may not have a case after all. Check out this link. [|The Justice Dept wants to drop the Kiyemba v. Obama case that we are following.]

Since this case might be dropped and there isn't much information being diverted other than what's already been posted, I went browsing for reports on the case and found this one. [|Justices to Decide on U.S. Release of Detainees]

Here's a more updated opinion on the recent developments of the case. [|Saved by the Swiss]

[|Here's an update as of 2/14/10:] "The Supreme Court is asking the Obama administration and lawyers for Chinese Muslims at Guantanamo Bay to explain how Switzerland's decision to resettle two detainees affects a pending high court case. The administration already has said the court may wish to dismiss the case now that the Swiss have agreed to provide a home to two of the seven Chinese Muslims, or Uighurs (WEE'-gurs), who remain at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. All seven now have received offers of resettlement. The Uighurs' lawyers have said the court should hear their case arguing that courts have the authority to release the detainees into the United States. The court on Friday gave lawyers on both sides a week to provide a fuller explanation of their positions."

This is an interesting development, especially as it relates to the [|European Union]. Posted by Christian 2/16.

I also found a page that has updates on the [|Guantanamo] situation. Posted by Christian 2/16.

Justice Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion to the courts decision not to hear former Panamanian dictator Noriega's appeal (to keep him from being extradited to France) about how they //should// hear the case, specifically because it would give the courts an opportunity to flush out what the feds should do about fuzzy categories of "prisoners of war". Thomas references our case a number of times in its district form, his opinion starts on the 14th page of The NYT explains the Noriega appeal here. Governement officials want this case to be dropped, I know we discussed this in class but this document is ineteresting in that it directly addresses why some want to see the case disappear while others want to see it ruled on  .Posted by Christian 2/21.