Talk:Rasul v. Bush

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I Am Not A Lawyer

I would like to note that I Am Not A Lawyer, just a guy reading through the opinions and some briefs in the case and trying to sort out the nonsense. Judicial review encouraged :) --Jkeiser 05:46, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

Odd facts

Just a note: this does not seem to fit into the timeline of the Supreme Court case: wouldn't the case have been dismissed if they were released before it went to trial? I don't grok. --Jkeiser 01:11, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

When an issue is likely to recur, the court may still consider it even after it becomes moot. For instance, Roe v. Wade was filed in 1970 but not decided until 1973, by which time Roe was no longer pregnant, yet the court still heard and decided the case. --Tms 29 June 2005 05:40 (UTC)

NPOV

The following sentence "Denials of actually having fought for the Taliban, as noted by the District Court, are conspicuously absent; but they do claim that if they did take up arms, it was only when being attacked and in self-defense. " - are in my opinion a breach of NPOV for the following reasons -

It suggest that having fought with the Taliban affects the legality of whether they were detained illegally.
The bolding of the word fought is an attempt to emphasise this point.
It tars all of the detainees with the same brush, it does not indicate who did and who did not admit to fighting with the Taliban.

Jooler 12:23, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What you said does not make sense Jooler, or at perhaps I am not understanding what you mean. If it had been found that they fought for the Taliban, then the question of the legality of their detention would be a non-issue. If indeed it were proven that he/she/it/they were/was fighting with the Taliban, then they would be categorized as enemy combatants (or prisoners of war), and due process would not apply to them.

My point is that your first point "#It suggest that having fought with the Taliban affects the legality of whether they were detained illegally." is confusing in that whether or not you fought for the Taliban does affect the legality of your detention.

Rasul and Iqbal, British?

Hi! I'm researching for my AP Gov class, and am reading Justice Steven's majority opinion on this case right now, and it says that the petitioners were "2 Australian citizens and 12 Kuwaiti citizens who were captured abroad during hostilities between the United States and the Taliban." He doesn't mention anything about British people. So I'm wondering, why does the wiki article say that Rasul and Iqbal are British? Just wondering. :)

Thanks,

Yu Han —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.68.211 (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Question" question

Under "Question for the Court," or whatever it says, is the text a quote from the case? If so, you need to cite the page number and indicate that is it, in fact, a quote. Also, I'm a quasi-lawyer (3L), so I'll look over what you have more closely and revise as necessary. --Jophus00 (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

complete jurisdiction and control

the lease text (part 1) is here : http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/dip_cuba002.asp ( Martin | talk • contribs 02:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]