Rendition

President Bush authorized the transfer (“rendition”) of persons held in U.S. custody to foreign countries where torture is known to be practiced (Laws violated include but are not limited to, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution; 18 U.S.C. Section 242 (War Crimes); 18 U.S.C. Section 2340 (Convention Against Torture Statute), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, note (the Torture Victim Protection Act), 5 U.S.C. § 702 (Administrative Procedure Act); the Convention Against Torture and implementing regulations, and others)

President Bush authorized indefinite detention of and denied the protections of the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Constitution to persons seized on and off battlefields. (Laws violated include but are not limited to: Article II of the U.S. Constitution; the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution; the due process requirements embodied in the common law; 5 U.S.C. Section 702 (the Administrative Procedure Act); 18 U.S.C. Section 242 (War Crimes); Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law (18 USC 242); Conspiracy Against Rights (18 USC 241); the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulation 190-8, Articles 3 and 5 of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions, and others).

Comment:
The issues of so-called “Extraordinary Rendition” (i.e.; extra-legal kidnapping) and transport of prisoners either to countries where it is reasonable to assume they will be tortured and otherwise abused (Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, others) or to the U.S. prison at Guantanamo, Cuba for prolonged detention with continued denial of detainee’s Constitutional and/or Geneva Convention rights has been written on at length. That these have occurred with the knowledge, approval, and under the express direction of both President Bush and V.P. Cheney, ordered by ex-Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, have been widely reported and are undisputed. What is at issue is the legality of the government's actions. There is a large body of national and international legal opinion that says theses actions are illegal and are violations of the above noted U.S. laws, treaties, and international agreements although the government maintains it has the authority to do all these things.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. (June 29, 2006):

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay violated both the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) and the four Geneva Conventions. Because the Geneva Conventions have been included into U.S. war cirmes laws, violation of the Geneva Conventions is also a violation of U.S. war crimes statutes. Thus the administration, that had intended to try Hamdan before a military commission, had attempted to do so in violation of U.S. and International law.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (June 28, 2004):

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that U.S. citizens designated as enemy combatants by the Executive Branch have a right to challenge their detainment under the Due Process Clause. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision [which had supported the government’s appeal of a prior lower court decision in favor of Hamdi] was vacated and remanded. Thus, Hamdi, a U.S. citizen imprisoned by the U.S. without due process and who was denied habeas corpus, had been illegally held.

Planned challenges to the denial of non-U.S. citizen detainee’s habeas corpus rights were derailed by passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (that specifically denies non-U.S. citizen detainee’s rights to independent judicial review of their detentions until they have been convicted by a military tribunal which is a long and tortuous process - effectively denying them habeas corpus*). The legality of MCA 2006 is being challenged as this is written.