Boumediene v. Bush

For more information, see the Wikipedia article "Boumediene v. Bush"

This is a topic, with start date December 5, 2007 and end date June 12, 2008.

Its theme(s) are Terrorism, War.

Summary of positions for this topic

• Supreme Court was correct in its ruling (15 items)

Full listing

Click on position names to view quotes from each listed item.

Summary	Position link	Stance
Contempt Of Courts by George F. Will (The Washington Post, June 17, 2008) (view)	Supreme Court was correct in its ruling	for
Justice 5, Brutality 4 by The New York Times editorial board (The New York Times, June 13, 2008) (view)	Supreme Court was correct in its ruling	for
The Justices' Refrain by The Washington Post editorial board (The Washington Post, June 13, 2008) (view)	Supreme Court was correct in its ruling	for
Habeas for Guantanamo detainees by Los Angeles Times editorial board (Los Angeles Times, June 13, 2008) (view)	Supreme Court was correct in its ruling	for
Supreme Court blots a stain by The Philadelphia Inquirer editorial board (The Philadelphia Inquirer, June 13, 2008) (view)	Supreme Court was correct in its ruling	for
Latest Guantanamo ruling reaffirms American values by USA Today editorial board (USA Today, June 13, 2008) (view)	Supreme Court was correct in its ruling	for
A rebuked Bush by San Francisco Chronicle editorial board (San Francisco Chronicle, June 13, 2008) (view)	Supreme Court was correct in its ruling	for
The Enemy Detainee Mess by The Wall Street Journal editorial board (The Wall Street Journal, July 3, 2008) (view)	Supreme Court was correct in its ruling	against
We'll Rue Having Judges on the Battlefield by Andrew McBride (The Wall Street Journal, June 21, 2008) (view)	Supreme Court was correct in its ruling	against
The Supreme Court Goes to War by John Yoo (The Wall Street Journal, June 17, 2008) (view)	Supreme Court was correct in its ruling	against
President Kennedy by The Wall Street Journal editorial board (The Wall Street Journal, June 13, 2008) (view)	Supreme Court was correct in its ruling	against
An inexplicable power grab by Richard Samp (USA Today, June 13, 2008) (view)	Supreme Court was correct in its ruling	against
Supreme Disgrace by Peter Wehner (National Review, June 13, 2008) (view)	Supreme Court was correct in its ruling	against
Supreme arrogance by New York Daily News editorial board (New York Daily News, June 12, 2008) (view)	Supreme Court was correct in its ruling	against
The Jihad Five by Investor's Business Daily editorial board (Investor's Business Daily, June 12, 2008) (view)	Supreme Court was correct in its ruling	against

All items that address this topic (15 total)

Title	Author	Source	Date
Supreme arrogance	New York Daily News editorial board	New York Daily News	June 12, 2008
The Jihad Five	Investor's Business Daily editorial board	Investor's Business Daily	June 12, 2008
Justice 5, Brutality 4	The New York Times editorial board	The New York Times	June 13, 2008
President Kennedy	The Wall Street Journal editorial board	The Wall Street Journal	June 13, 2008
The Justices' Refrain	The Washington Post editorial board	The Washington Post	June 13, 2008
Habeas for Guantanamo detainees	Los Angeles Times editorial board	Los Angeles Times	June 13, 2008
Supreme Court blots a stain	The Philadelphia Inquirer editorial board	The Philadelphia Inquirer	June 13, 2008
Latest Guantanamo ruling reaffirms American values	USA Today editorial board	USA Today	June 13, 2008
An inexplicable power grab	Richard Samp	USA Today	June 13, 2008
A rebuked Bush	San Francisco Chronicle editorial board	San Francisco Chronicle	June 13, 2008
Supreme Disgrace	Peter Wehner	National Review	June 13, 2008
The Supreme Court Goes to War	John Yoo	The Wall Street Journal	June 17, 2008
Contempt Of Courts	George F. Will	The Washington Post	June 17, 2008
We'll Rue Having Judges on the Battlefield	Andrew McBride	The Wall Street Journal	June 21, 2008
The Enemy Detainee Mess	The Wall Street Journal editorial board	The Wall Street Journal	July 3, 2008