{"id":3415,"date":"2017-01-04T22:23:50","date_gmt":"2017-01-04T21:23:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/?p=3415"},"modified":"2021-04-07T20:39:16","modified_gmt":"2021-04-07T19:39:16","slug":"lhabeas-corpus-vi-lhabeas-corpus-aux-etats-unis-apres-2001-partie-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/?p=3415","title":{"rendered":"L&rsquo;habeas corpus (VII) : l&rsquo;habeas corpus aux Etats-Unis apr\u00e8s 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"pdfprnt-buttons pdfprnt-buttons-post pdfprnt-top-right\"><a href=\"https:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fposts%2F3415&print=pdf\" class=\"pdfprnt-button pdfprnt-button-pdf\" target=\"_blank\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"http:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/wp-content\/plugins\/pdf-print\/images\/pdf.png\" alt=\"image_pdf\" title=\"View PDF\" \/><\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fposts%2F3415&print=print\" class=\"pdfprnt-button pdfprnt-button-print\" target=\"_blank\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"http:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/wp-content\/plugins\/pdf-print\/images\/print.png\" alt=\"image_print\" title=\"Print Content\" \/><\/a><\/div><p align=\"justify\">Les attentats du 11 septembre 2001 ont raviv\u00e9 la question du droit \u00e0 l&rsquo;habeas corpus aux Etats-Unis et au Royaume-Uni. En r\u00e9action, les deux pays adoptent des l\u00e9gislations d&rsquo;exception permettant la d\u00e9tention sans inculpation ni jugement de personnes soup\u00e7onn\u00e9es de terrorisme pour une dur\u00e9e illimit\u00e9e (<i>indefinite detention<\/i>).<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">Des associations de d\u00e9fense des libert\u00e9s, des juristes, des intellectuels se mobilisent d\u00e8s 2002. La justice saisie, les d\u00e9tentions ordonn\u00e9es par le pouvoir ex\u00e9cutif se heurtent aux tentatives de contr\u00f4le des juges <a id=\"anote1\" href=\"#note1\">[1]<\/a>.<\/p>\n<h4>Les entorses \u00e0 l&rsquo;habeas corpus aux Etats-Unis \u00e0 compter de 2001<\/h4>\n<p align=\"justify\">Le gouvernement Bush propose peu apr\u00e8s les attentats de 2001 une s\u00e9rie de dispositions pour lutter contre le terrorisme. L&rsquo;objectif de l&rsquo;ex\u00e9cutif est d&rsquo;avoir les coud\u00e9es franches dans la lutte contre le terrorisme. Il b\u00e9n\u00e9ficie alors de la confiance des deux tiers des am\u00e9ricains.<\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_3513\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-3513\" style=\"width: 300px\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\"><a href=\"http:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/Bush_signs_Patriot_Act_2001.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-3513 size-medium\" src=\"http:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/Bush_signs_Patriot_Act_2001-300x200.jpg\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\" srcset=\"https:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/Bush_signs_Patriot_Act_2001-300x200.jpg 300w, https:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/Bush_signs_Patriot_Act_2001.jpg 600w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><\/a><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-3513\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">George W. Bush signant le Patriot Act le 26 octobre 2001, photographie officielle de la Maison Blanche (Eric Draper)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p align=\"justify\">Le droit \u00e0 l&rsquo;habeas corpus, c&rsquo;est-\u00e0-dire le droit de contester la l\u00e9galit\u00e9 d&rsquo;une privation de libert\u00e9, a rarement \u00e9t\u00e9 suspendu dans l&rsquo;histoire am\u00e9ricaine. La suspension a notamment \u00e9t\u00e9 ordonn\u00e9e par le Pr\u00e9sident Abraham Lincoln en 1861 pendant la guerre civile <a id=\"anote2\" href=\"#note2\">[2]<\/a> et par le Pr\u00e9sident Franklin D. Roosevelt en 1942 apr\u00e8s l&rsquo;attaque japonaise de Pearl Harbour <a id=\"anote3\" href=\"#note3\">[3]<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">La constitution am\u00e9ricaine de 1787 pr\u00e9voit que sa suspension est interdite sauf en cas de r\u00e9bellion ou d&rsquo;invasion, si la s\u00e9curit\u00e9 de l&rsquo;Etat l&rsquo;exige. Le droit \u00e0 l&rsquo;habeas corpus, pourtant ancr\u00e9 dans ce pays de common law, est battu en br\u00e8che apr\u00e8s 2001 au nom des imp\u00e9ratifs de s\u00e9curit\u00e9.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Le Patriot Act de 2001<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"western\" lang=\"en-US\" align=\"justify\">La loi phare, le <em>Patriot Act<\/em> <a id=\"anote4\" href=\"#note4\">[4]<\/a>, vot\u00e9e par le Congr\u00e8s, est adopt\u00e9e par le pr\u00e9sident Bush le 26 octobre 2001. Elle renforce fortement les pouvoirs en mati\u00e8re de d\u00e9tention d&rsquo;\u00e9trangers de l\u2019<em>Attorney General, <\/em>\u00e0 la t\u00eate du D\u00e9partement de la Justice (DoJ). Aux termes de l&rsquo;article 412, l\u2019<em>Attorney General<\/em> peut ordonner le placement en d\u00e9tention de tout \u00e9tranger sur la base d&rsquo;une certification selon laquelle il y aurait des<span lang=\"fr-FR\"> \u00ab<em>motifs raisonnables de croire<\/em>\u00bb (<em>reasonable grounds to believe<\/em>) qu&rsquo;il est engag\u00e9 dans des activit\u00e9s terroristes ou met en p\u00e9ril la s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale des \u00c9tats-Unis.<\/span><\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_3522\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-3522\" style=\"width: 215px\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\"><a href=\"http:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/John_Ashcroft.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-3522 \" src=\"http:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/John_Ashcroft-240x300.jpg\" width=\"215\" height=\"269\" srcset=\"https:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/John_Ashcroft-240x300.jpg 240w, https:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/John_Ashcroft.jpg 442w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 215px) 100vw, 215px\" \/><\/a><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-3522\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">John Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney General (2001\u20132005), photographie officielle <em>United States Department of Justice<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p align=\"justify\">La d\u00e9tention est d\u00e9sormais prononc\u00e9e pour une dur\u00e9e initiale de sept jours. Durant cette p\u00e9riode, <em>l&rsquo;Attorney General<\/em> doit soit engager une proc\u00e9dure d&rsquo;expulsion soit notifier aux personnes concern\u00e9es les charges retenues contre elles. A d\u00e9faut, celles-ci doivent \u00eatre lib\u00e9r\u00e9es.<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">N\u00e9anmoins, si l&rsquo;expulsion n&rsquo;appara\u00eet pas possible \u00e0 court terme et si la lib\u00e9ration de l&rsquo;individu pr\u00e9sente un danger pour la s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale, la communaut\u00e9 ou toute personne, l&rsquo;<em>Attorney General<\/em> peut renouveler sa d\u00e9tention par p\u00e9riodes de six mois apr\u00e8s r\u00e9\u00e9valuation. <span class=\"heading bold\">Aucune limite dans le temps n&rsquo;est dans cette hypoth\u00e8se fix\u00e9e. Ainsi, si le pays d&rsquo;origine du d\u00e9tenu refuse son retour, celui-ci peut \u00eatre d\u00e9tenu ind\u00e9finiment. Ceci sans charge ni proc\u00e8s. Le <em>Patriot Act<\/em> pr\u00e9voit par contre la possibilit\u00e9 de contester la d\u00e9tention par le biais de la proc\u00e9dure d&rsquo;habeas corpus.<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Le military order de 2001<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"justify\">Le gouvernement Bush adopte \u00e9galement des mesures importantes par d\u00e9cret pr\u00e9sidentiel sans faire appel au Congr\u00e8s. Le 13 novembre 2001, il institue avec le <em>Military Order<\/em> <a id=\"anote5\" href=\"#note5\">[5]<\/a> des tribunaux militaires destin\u00e9s \u00e0 juger les prisonniers de la <i>\u00abguerre contre le terrorisme<\/i>\u00bb. Ces tribunaux ont comp\u00e9tence exclusive. Tout recours devant un autre juridiction est exclu. Le gouvernement Bush contestera par la suite que l&rsquo;objectif \u00e9tait de nier le droit de pr\u00e9senter une requ\u00eate en habeas corpus. <b class=\"b3\"><br \/>\n<\/b><\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_3535\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-3535\" style=\"width: 219px\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\"><a href=\"http:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/Philbin_Yoo_guantanamo_habeas_corpus_memo.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-3535 \" src=\"http:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/Philbin_Yoo_guantanamo_habeas_corpus_memo-232x300.jpg\" width=\"219\" height=\"283\" srcset=\"https:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/Philbin_Yoo_guantanamo_habeas_corpus_memo-232x300.jpg 232w, https:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/Philbin_Yoo_guantanamo_habeas_corpus_memo.jpg 463w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 219px) 100vw, 219px\" \/><\/a><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-3535\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Note du 28\/12\/2001 sur la possibilit\u00e9 d&rsquo;une requ\u00eate en habeas corpus pour les \u00e9trangers d\u00e9tenus \u00e0 Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, U.S. Department of Justice, Wikimedia Commons.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p align=\"justify\">Le 28 d\u00e9cembre 2001, deux avocats conseillers de l&rsquo;<em>Attorney General<\/em>, John Yoo et Patrick Philbin, adressent une note au conseiller juridique du D\u00e9partement de la D\u00e9fense, William G. Haynes II, dans laquelle ils indiquent que les <em>federal district courts<\/em> (tribunaux f\u00e9d\u00e9raux) ne seraient a priori pas comp\u00e9tentes pour statuer sur les requ\u00eates en habeas corpus pour un \u00e9tranger d\u00e9tenu \u00e0 Guantanamo Bay \u00e0 Cuba <a id=\"anote6\" href=\"#note6\">[6]<\/a>.<em><br \/>\n<\/em><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Le Legal Black Hole de Guantanamo<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"justify\">Johan Steyn, un juge anglais de la plus haute cour de justice d&rsquo;Angleterre et du pays de Galles, \u00e9voque en novembre 2003 lors d&rsquo;une conf\u00e9rence \u00e0 Londres, sous forme de r\u00e9quisitoire, ce qu&rsquo;il appelle le \u00ab<em>legal Black hole<\/em>\u00bb (le trou noir juridique) et un \u00ab<em>monstrous failure of justice<\/em>\u00bb (un \u00e9chec \u00e9norme de la justice) <a id=\"anote7\" href=\"#note7\">[7]<\/a>. Il affirme que l&rsquo;objectif recherch\u00e9 des d\u00e9tentions \u00e0 Guantanamo est de priver les prisonniers concern\u00e9s des r\u00e8gles de l&rsquo;Etat de droit.<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">Il rappelle que l&rsquo;Angleterre a elle-m\u00eame \u00e9t\u00e9 tent\u00e9e dans le pass\u00e9 d&rsquo;envoyer des prisonniers dans des lieux recul\u00e9s pour \u00e9viter qu&rsquo;ils soient soumis aux r\u00e8gles de droit jusqu&rsquo;\u00e0 ce qu&rsquo;il y soit mis fin en 1679. Il fait un parall\u00e8le direct avec la pratique adopt\u00e9e au 17\u00e8me si\u00e8cle par Edward Hyde, Premier Comte de Clarendon (Lord Chancelier du roi anglais Charles II) qui consistait \u00e0 envoyer les d\u00e9tenus g\u00eanants dans des lieux \u00e9loign\u00e9s comme l&rsquo;\u00eele de Jersey pour les soustraire au contr\u00f4le des juges. Il pr\u00e9cise que cette pratique a \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9clar\u00e9e ill\u00e9gale en Angleterre en 1679 avec l&rsquo;<em>Habeas Corpus Act<\/em> et a valu \u00e0 Clarendon d&rsquo;\u00eatre destitu\u00e9 en 1667 pour violations flagrantes de l&rsquo;habeas corpus.<\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_3550\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-3550\" style=\"width: 204px\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\"><a href=\"http:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/Johan_Steyn.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-3550 \" src=\"http:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/Johan_Steyn.jpg\" width=\"204\" height=\"289\" \/><\/a><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-3550\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Le juge anglais Johan Steyn, par Jake Wallis Simons, Migration Museum Project<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p align=\"justify\">Selon lui, les 660 prisonniers transf\u00e9r\u00e9s d\u00e9but 2002 (dont des enfants de 13 \u00e0 16 ans) \u00e0 Guantanamo Bay n&rsquo;ont aucune possibilit\u00e9 de contester la l\u00e9galit\u00e9 de leur d\u00e9tention. Ils ne b\u00e9n\u00e9ficient pas davantage d&rsquo;un proc\u00e8s \u00e9quitable en \u00e9tant jug\u00e9s dans le secret par des militaires jouant le r\u00f4le \u00e0 la fois d&rsquo;agents charg\u00e9s de mener les interrogatoires, procureurs, avocats de la d\u00e9fense, juges et en cas de prononc\u00e9 d&rsquo;une peine de mort, de bourreaux.<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">D\u00e9but 2002, le <em>Center for Constitutional Rights<\/em> (Centre pour les droits constitutionnels, CCR) a pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 des requ\u00eates en habeas corpus au nom de d\u00e9tenus australiens (Mamdouh Habib et David Hicks) et britanniques (Shafiq Rasul et Asif Iqbal). Le recours de douze kowe\u00eftiens (affaire <i>al Odah v. Bush<\/i>) est joint ult\u00e9rieurement.<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">Incarc\u00e9r\u00e9s depuis d\u00e9but 2002 \u00e0 Guantanamo, ils se sont vus refuser l&rsquo;acc\u00e8s \u00e0 un avocat et \u00e0 une cour de justice et contestent la l\u00e9galit\u00e9 de leur d\u00e9tention. Le tribunal de District pour le Dictrict de Columbia en juillet 2002, puis la cour d\u2019appel des \u00c9tats-Unis pour le circuit du district de Columbia en mars 2003 rejettent leurs requ\u00eates.<\/p>\n<h4 align=\"justify\">La r\u00e9sistance de la Cour supr\u00eame<\/h4>\n<p align=\"justify\">A partir de 2004, d\u00e9bute un bras de fer entre la Cour supr\u00eame des Etats-Unis d&rsquo;une part et l&rsquo;administration Bush et ses soutiens au Congr\u00e8s d&rsquo;autre part. La haute cour va rappeler \u00e0 plusieurs reprises jusqu&rsquo;en 2008 le droit fondamental \u00e0 l&rsquo;habeas corpus. Elle r\u00e9ussit avec un succ\u00e8s relatif. Ses d\u00e9cisions, r\u00e9guli\u00e8rement contourn\u00e9es, montrent leurs limites apr\u00e8s 2008.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>La d\u00e9cision Rasul v. Bush (28 juin 2004)<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<figure id=\"attachment_3563\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-3563\" style=\"width: 200px\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\"><a href=\"http:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/John_Paul_Stevens.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-3563\" src=\"http:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/John_Paul_Stevens-233x300.jpg\" width=\"200\" height=\"257\" srcset=\"https:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/John_Paul_Stevens-233x300.jpg 233w, https:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/John_Paul_Stevens.jpg 310w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 200px) 100vw, 200px\" \/><\/a><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-3563\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Le juge John Paul Stevens, par Steve Petteway<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p align=\"justify\">En 2004, \u00e0 l&rsquo;occasion de l&rsquo;arr\u00eat <em>Rasul v. Bush<\/em> <a id=\"anote8\" href=\"#note8\">[8]<\/a>, la Cour supr\u00eame des Etats-Unis juge que le juridictions am\u00e9ricaines sont comp\u00e9tentes pour juger de la l\u00e9galit\u00e9 de la d\u00e9tention des prisonniers non-Am\u00e9ricains d\u00e9tenus sur la base de Guant\u00e1namo contr\u00f4l\u00e9e par les Etats-Unis. Elle souligne que si Guantanamo se situe en dehors du territoire am\u00e9ricain, la base navale de Guantanamo occup\u00e9e par les Etas-Unis depuis 1903 est quant \u00e0 elle plac\u00e9e sous le contr\u00f4le et la juridiction compl\u00e8te des Etats-Unis.<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">Le juge\u00a0John Paul Stevens, auteur de l&rsquo;opinion majoritaire, se fonde notamment sur la pratique et la juriprudence des juridictions anglaises au 18\u00e8me qui reconnaissaient un droit \u00e0 l&rsquo;habeas corpus aussi bien aux \u00e9trangers d\u00e9tenus au sein du Royaume, qu&rsquo;aux personnes d\u00e9tenus dans des territoires dits exempt\u00e9s (comme les <em>Cinque Ports<\/em>, etc.) ou dans un territoire sous domination de la couronne britannique.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: right;\" align=\"justify\"><em>\u00e0 suivre&#8230;<\/em><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p align=\"justify\">1. <a id=\"note1\" href=\"#anote1\">[\u2191]<\/a> Voir l&rsquo;ouvrage <span id=\"productTitle\" class=\"a-size-large\"><em>Law, Liberty and the Constitution<\/em> par Harry Potter, 2015, pages 272 et suivantes (chapitre 29 <em>Liberty Sacrificed to Security<\/em>) ; l&rsquo;ouvrage <em>The Power oh Habeas Corpus in America, From the King&rsquo;s Prerogative to the War on Terror<\/em>, par Anthony Gregory, 2013, page 185<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">2. <a id=\"note2\" href=\"#anote2\">[\u2191]<\/a> Idem Anthony Gregory, 2013, pages 91-105 (chapitre 6 : <em>Suspension and Civil War<\/em>).<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">3. <a id=\"note3\" href=\"#anote3\">[\u2191]<\/a> Idem Anthony Gregory, 2013, pages 143-159 (chapitre 9 : <em>The Writ in World War<\/em>).<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">4. <a id=\"note4\" href=\"#anote4\">[\u2191]<\/a> Voir l&rsquo;ouvrage <em>Habeas Corpus After 9\/11, Confronting America&rsquo;s New Global Detention System<\/em>, par Jonathan Hafetz, 2012, page 13 ; voir le texte de la loi sur le site du Congr\u00e8s am\u00e9ricain\u00a0(<em>Library of Congress <\/em>:\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.loc.gov\">https:\/\/www.loc.gov<\/a>) : <a href=\"https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/107th-congress\/house-bill\/3162\">https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/107th-congress\/house-bill\/3162<\/a>, et notamment l&rsquo;article 412 :<\/p>\n<pre id=\"billTextContainer\">SEC. 412. MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS; HABEAS CORPUS; \r\n            JUDICIAL REVIEW.\r\n\r\n    (a) In General.--The Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 \r\net seq.) is amended by inserting after section 236 the following:\r\n\r\n ``mandatory detention of suspected terrorists; habeas corpus; judicial \r\n                                 review\r\n\r\n    ``Sec. 236A.  (a) Detention of Terrorist Aliens.--\r\n            ``(1) Custody.--The Attorney General shall take into custody \r\n        any alien who is certified under paragraph (3).\r\n            ``(2) Release.--Except as provided in paragraphs (5) and \r\n        (6), the Attorney General shall maintain custody of such an \r\n        alien until the alien is removed from the United States. Except \r\n        as provided in paragraph (6), such custody shall be maintained \r\n        irrespective of any relief from removal for which the alien may \r\n        be eligible, or any relief from removal granted the alien, until \r\n        the Attorney General determines that the alien is no longer an \r\n        alien who may be certified under paragraph (3). If the alien is \r\n        finally determined not to be removable, detention pursuant to \r\n        this subsection shall terminate.\r\n            ``(3) Certification.--The Attorney General may certify an \r\n        alien under this paragraph if the Attorney General has \r\n        reasonable grounds to believe that the alien--\r\n                    ``(A) is described in section 212(a)(3)(A)(i), \r\n                212(a)(3)(A)(iii), 212(a)(3)(B), 237(a)(4)(A)(i), \r\n                237(a)(4)(A)(iii), or 237(a)(4)(B); or\r\n                    ``(B) is engaged in any other activity that \r\n                endangers the national security of the United States.\r\n            ``(4) Nondelegation.--The Attorney General may delegate the \r\n        authority provided under paragraph (3) only to the Deputy \r\n        Attorney General. The Deputy Attorney General may not delegate \r\n        such authority.\r\n            ``(5) Commencement of proceedings.--The \r\n        Attorney General shall place an alien detained under paragraph \r\n        (1) in removal proceedings, or shall charge the alien with a \r\n        criminal offense, not later than 7 days after the commencement \r\n        of such detention. If the requirement of the preceding sentence \r\n        is not satisfied, the Attorney General shall release the alien.\r\n            ``(6) Limitation on indefinite detention.--An alien detained \r\n        solely under paragraph (1) who has not been removed under \r\n        section 241(a)(1)(A), and whose removal is unlikely in the \r\n        reasonably foreseeable future, may be detained for additional \r\n        periods of up to six months only if the release of the alien \r\n        will threaten the national security of the United States or the \r\n        safety of the community or any person.\r\n            ``(7) Review of certification.--The Attorney General shall \r\n        review the certification made under paragraph (3) every 6 \r\n        months. If the Attorney General determines, in the Attorney \r\n        General's discretion, that the certification should be revoked, \r\n        the alien may be released on such conditions as the Attorney \r\n        General deems appropriate, unless such release is otherwise \r\n        prohibited by law. The alien may request each 6 months in \r\n        writing that the Attorney General reconsider the certification \r\n        and may submit documents or other evidence in support of that \r\n        request.\r\n\r\n    ``(b) Habeas Corpus and Judicial Review.--\r\n            ``(1) In general.--Judicial review of any action or decision \r\n        relating to this section (including judicial review of the \r\n        merits of a determination made under subsection (a)(3) or \r\n        (a)(6)) is available exclusively in habeas corpus proceedings \r\n        consistent\r\n        with this subsection. Except as provided in the preceding \r\n        sentence, no court shall have jurisdiction to review, by habeas \r\n        corpus petition or otherwise, any such action or decision.\r\n            ``(2) Application.--\r\n                    ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other \r\n                provision of law, including section 2241(a) of title 28, \r\n                United States Code, habeas corpus proceedings described \r\n                in paragraph (1) may be initiated only by an application \r\n                filed with--\r\n                          ``(i) the Supreme Court;\r\n                          ``(ii) any justice of the Supreme Court;\r\n                          ``(iii) any circuit judge of the United States \r\n                      Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia \r\n                      Circuit; or\r\n                          ``(iv) any district court otherwise having \r\n                      jurisdiction to entertain it.\r\n                    ``(B) Application transfer.--Section 2241(b) of \r\n                title 28, United States Code, shall apply to an \r\n                application for a writ of habeas corpus described in \r\n                subparagraph (A).\r\n            ``(3) Appeals.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, \r\n        including section 2253 of title 28, in habeas corpus proceedings \r\n        described in paragraph (1) before a circuit or district judge, \r\n        the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the \r\n        United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia \r\n        Circuit. There shall be no right of appeal in such proceedings \r\n        to any other circuit court of appeals.\r\n            ``(4) Rule of decision.--The law applied by the Supreme \r\n        Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of \r\n        Columbia Circuit shall be regarded as the rule of decision in \r\n        habeas corpus proceedings described in paragraph (1).\r\n\r\n    ``(c) Statutory Construction.--The provisions of this section shall \r\nnot be applicable to any other provision of this Act.''.\r\n    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of the Immigration \r\nand Nationality Act is amended by inserting after the item relating to \r\nsection 236 the following:\r\n\r\n``Sec. 236A. Mandatory detention of suspected terrorist; habeas corpus; \r\n           judicial review.''.\r\n\r\n    (c) Reports.--Not later than 6 \r\nmonths after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 6 months \r\nthereafter, the Attorney General shall submit a report to the Committee \r\non the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on \r\nthe Judiciary of the Senate, with respect to the reporting period, on--\r\n            (1) the number of aliens certified under section 236A(a)(3) \r\n        of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by subsection \r\n        (a);\r\n            (2) the grounds for such certifications;\r\n            (3) the nationalities of the aliens so certified;\r\n            (4) the length of the detention for each alien so certified; \r\n        and\r\n            (5) the number of aliens so certified who--\r\n                    (A) were granted any form of relief from removal;\r\n                    (B) were removed;\r\n                    (C) the Attorney General has determined are no \r\n                longer aliens who may be so certified; or\r\n                    (D) were released from detention.\r\n<\/pre>\n<p align=\"justify\">5. <a id=\"note5\" href=\"#anote5\">[\u2191]<\/a> Idem Jonathan Hafetz, 2012, pages 16-18 ; Idem Anthony Gregory, 2013, page 200 (chapitre 12 : <em>Enemy Aliens and Bush&rsquo;s Prerogative<\/em>).<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">6. <a id=\"note6\" href=\"#anote6\">[\u2191]<\/a> Idem Jonathan Hafetz, 2012, page 29 ; Idem Anthony Gregory, 2013, page 206 (chapitre 12 : <em>Enemy Aliens and Bush&rsquo;s Prerogative<\/em>).<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">7. <a id=\"note7\" href=\"#anote7\">[\u2191]<\/a> Voir le texte de l&rsquo;intervention de Johan Steyn (un des douze <em>Law Lords <\/em>(ou<em> Lords of Appeal in Ordinary<\/em>) de 1995 \u00e0 2005 devenu en 2009 la Cour supr\u00eame du Royaume Uni) lors de la 27<sup>e<\/sup> conf\u00e9rence F.-A.-Mann le 25 novembre 2003 : <span class=\"st\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.google.fr\/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNoPjrxrPRAhXGVxoKHSw6CIUQFggaMAA&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.statewatch.org%2Fnews%2F2003%2Fnov%2Fguantanamo.pdf&amp;usg=AFQjCNH9SRVfl8cJX4ViG8N8MqSqbq1bZg&amp;bvm=bv.142059868,d.d2s\"><em>Guantanamo Bay :<\/em> The <em>legal black hole<\/em><\/a>. <em>Twenty-Seventh F.A. Mann Lecture: 25 November 2003<\/em> ; un extrait de son intervention a \u00e9t\u00e9 publi\u00e9 dans le journal fran\u00e7ais Le Monde traduit de l&rsquo;anglais par David Boyle : <\/span><em>Le trou noir juridique de Guantanamo<\/em>, par Johan Steyn, 9 d\u00e9cembre 2003.<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span class=\"st\">\u00a0<\/span>8. <a id=\"note8\" href=\"#anote8\">[\u2191]<\/a> Voir l&rsquo;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/supct\/html\/03-334.ZS.html\">arr\u00eat<\/a> sur le site de la <em>Cornell University Law School<\/em>, <em>Legal Information Institute<\/em> (LII).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Les attentats du 11 septembre 2001 ont raviv\u00e9 la question du droit \u00e0 l&rsquo;habeas corpus aux Etats-Unis et au Royaume-Uni. En r\u00e9action, les deux pays adoptent des l\u00e9gislations d&rsquo;exception permettant la d\u00e9tention sans inculpation ni&#8230;<\/p>\n<div class=\"more-link-wrapper\"><a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/?p=3415\">Lire la suite<span class=\"screen-reader-text\">L&rsquo;habeas corpus (VII) : l&rsquo;habeas corpus aux Etats-Unis apr\u00e8s 2001<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,5,4,6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3415","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-actualite","category-etats-unis","category-histoire","category-royaume-uni","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3415","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3415"}],"version-history":[{"count":102,"href":"https:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3415\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6423,"href":"https:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3415\/revisions\/6423"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3415"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3415"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3415"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}