用户:Hamham/冲动消费

保罗·瓦雷里 Paul Valéry
1925年前后的瓦雷里
出生	Ambroise-Paul-Toussaint-Jules Valéry 1871年10月30日 Template:FRA1870、赛特
逝世	1945年7月20日(1945岁—07—20)（73岁） Template:FRA1944、巴黎
墓地	法国、赛特
职业	诗人、小说家、评论家
语言	法语
国籍	法国
母校	蒙彼利埃大学法学部
代表作	《年轻的命运女神》 La jeune Parque
签名

保罗·瓦雷里（Template:Lang-fr-short, 1871年10月30日—1945年7月20日），法国诗人、小说家及评论家，法兰西学术院院士。除了小说（诗歌、戏剧、对话），他还撰写了大量关于艺术、历史、文学、音乐、政治、时事的文章，其高产的创作使其成为当时法国代表性的知识分子。瓦雷里也是法国象征主义后期诗人的主要代表。

生涯と作品

作家生平

1871年，瓦雷里诞生于地中海沿岸的法国港口城市赛特。其父为科西嘉岛人，是一名税务官吏。母亲法妮出生于意大利的的里雅斯特，当时其父亲作为意大利领事驻扎于赛特。瓦雷里在5岁时入读当地的道明会创办的学校。7岁入读赛特的初等学校，11岁入高等科学习。他在少年时期就酷爱读书。1884年，瓦雷里迁居至蒙彼利埃，并转校至当地的高中。他原本希望从事与祖父一样的水手工作，但遭到父亲的反对，加之其数学成绩不佳，最终未能如愿。当时他也经常到母亲的老家热那亚度假，并开始逐渐对文学、绘画和建筑等等产生兴趣，尝试着自己写诗。1887年3月，瓦雷里的父亲去世。

1888年，他考入蒙彼利埃大学法学部，并热衷于阅读爱伦坡及波德莱尔的诗。当时他了解到不少象征主义和高踏派的诗人。在1889年左右，他被若利斯·卡尔·于斯曼的《逆流》所吸引，对其中所引用的保尔·魏尔伦、阿蒂尔·兰波及斯特凡·马拉梅等人的作品非常喜爱。18岁的瓦雷里写了一首诗《梦》(Rève)，并被哥哥送至马赛的刊物《Revue maritime》发表，此后另一篇诗《月出》(Elévation de la lune)也被发表。同年，他作为志愿兵在蒙彼利埃步兵第122连队服役一年。

1890年5月，在蒙彼利埃大学创办600周年纪念仪式上，瓦雷里结识了从巴黎来的诗人皮埃尔·路易斯，两人自此成为挚友。1890年9月，路易斯在给瓦雷里的书信中引用了马拉梅的诗文，让后者感动不已。12月，路易斯又介绍瓦雷里认识了安德烈·纪德，后者也成为瓦雷里终其一生的好友。1891年起，瓦雷里的创作逐渐活跃起来，在路易斯和纪德等人创办的同人刊物的创刊号上也刊登了《纳尔西斯说》(Narcisse parle)。这篇作品被日报《辩论》高度评价，瓦雷里也被评为与路易斯和纪德同一水准的杰出青年作家。大学毕业后，瓦雷里决心投身文学创作事业，来到巴黎，并在每周二参加马拉梅的文学聚会活动。

暂别文学界

1892年9月至11月，瓦雷里在热那亚的母亲一方的亲戚家小住。期间他开始怀疑自己的诗歌创作能力，也逐渐厌恶文学写作。他决心舍弃情爱等世俗的诱惑，并以对知性的崇拜为目标。当时热那亚正好遇上了一场史无前例的暴风，于是被他称为“热那亚之夜”。从1894年起，他开始记录以《卡伊》为题的私人笔记，并不考虑公开发表。长期的积累下，这一笔记达到了2万6千多页的惊人篇幅。1895年，他发表了评论《莱昂纳多·达芬奇之方法序说》，次年又发表了小说《与特斯特的夜会》。此后，他在长达20年的时间里埋头于《卡伊》的记录，进入了漫长的文学沉默期。

1896年，他在伦敦经马拉梅介绍，结识了诗人威廉·欧内斯特·亨利。后者希望瓦雷里用法语对其主办的杂志《The New Review》上一篇有关德意志产业对英国的压力写一段哲学性的结论。瓦雷里当时对“方法论”(méthode)比较关注，于是在1897年发表了一篇题为《德意志的称霸》(La Conquête allemande)的论述。这篇文章在1915年被法国杂志再次刊载，并在1924年改名为《方法的称霸》(Une Conquête méthodique)后再次出版。在这篇论文中，作者提到了德意志、意大利、日本等后来居上的国家的繁荣过程，因此也被评论为对于后来的轴心国的形成有一定影响。

《魂与舞》(1921年)

1897年到1900年期间，瓦雷里供职于陆军省炮兵队。1898年，马拉梅去世，瓦雷里痛心不已。1900年，瓦雷里与女画家贝鲁特・莫莉佐的侄女结婚。此后他被聘为哈瓦斯通讯社的社长私人秘书，生计大为改善。

1913年，安德烈·纪德邀请他将其旧时的诗作汇编成册，1917年4月在《新法兰西评论》上发表了《年轻的命运女神》，一举成名天下知。另外，在1920年由同一杂志刊载的《海滨墓园》(Le Cimetière marin)中，他弃用当时主流的十二音节诗行，而选用十音节以及每节6行的诗歌形式，再次大获好评。1921年，杂志《知识》（Connaissances）将其评选为现代七大诗人之一。

文笔活动

1919年にロンドンの周刊志‘アシニーアム’志に“第一の手纸(The spiritual crisis)”及び“第二の手纸(The intellectual crisis)”と题する、ヨーロッパの精神史について英文で発表。このフランス语原文が‘NRF’志巻头に掲载された际に“精神の危机(La Cries de l’Esprit)”の表题が付けられた。1922年11月15日にチューリッヒ大学で行われた“精神の危机”と题された讲演は有名となり、1924年に“精神の危机”が评论集‘ヴァリエテ Ⅰ’に収录された际に、讲演の抜粋が“付记（あるいはヨーロッパ人）(Note(ou L’EUROPEEN))”として组み込まれた。このチューリッヒでヴァレリーはリルケと会うことを期待していたが、リルケの金策の都合でかなわず、ヴァレリーに果物笼を差し入れをした。

诗作‘ユウパリノス’(1921年)‘魅惑’(1922年)で名声は外国にまで広がり、また1922年に雇い主のルベーが死去し、文人としての生活に入った。1923年にイギリス、ベルギー、スペイン、イタリアに招かれて讲演を行う。その后もヨーロッパ各地の讲演に招かれ、多くの発表した文集が刊行、翻訳された。1924年にアナトール・フランスの死去により后任としてフランス・ペンクラブの会长となり、翌年にはアカデミー・フランセーズ会员に选出される。

fr:Paule Gobillard画“ポール・ヴァレリー夫人と息子クロード(1910年)

1928年、ジュネーブでの国际连盟知的协力会议の议长を务める。中国の作家盛成が1928年にパリで“我が母”原稿を书いた时には、ヴァレリーが序文（のち“东洋と西洋”）を书いて出版社を绍介した。1930年、パリで开催されたギリシャ独立100年祭でギリシャから勋章を赠られる。1931年、パリで开催された国际ペンクラブ大会议长を务め、またオペラ座にてアルテュール・オネゲル作曲の“アンフィオン（Amphion)”がルビンシュタイン・バレエ団により上演された。1933年、地中海中央研究所所长就任、知的协力委员会にてヨーロッパ研究连盟设立の常任议长に选ばれる。1934年、ドラマ“セミラミス(Sémiramis)”がオペラ座で上演。

1936年コレージュ・ド・フランス教授に选出され、翌年から诗学讲座を担当する。数多くの执笔依赖や讲演をこなし、フランスの代表的知性と讴われ、第三共和政の诗人としてその名を确固たるものしていく。第二次世界大戦开戦で南仏に逃れたが、1940年秋からドイツ军占领后のヴィシー政権下のパリに戻り、最后の著作‘わがファウスト’の执笔、コレージュ・ド・フランスでの讲义を続けるが、政権には批判的であり、地中海中央研究所所长を解任される。1942年には‘邪念その他’の用纸配给をドイツ军に一时差し止められた。1943年には文学者爱国戦线に参加、また自身の水彩画展を开く。パリ解放后の1945年に地中海中央研究所所长再任。

1945年5月に溃疡で病床に就き7月20日死去。葬仪はサントノレ・ティエリー教会にて行われ、翌日ドゴールの要请でトロカデロ広场にて、戦后フランス第一号の国葬式典が行われた。遗骨は故郷セットの墓地に葬られ、墓石には“海辺の墓地”の一节が刻まれている。

神々の静寂の上に 长く视线を投げて
おお 思索の后の心地よいこの返礼

ジッドの尽力により、1930年から逝去した1945年にかけて、断続的にほぼ毎年ノーベル文学赏候补としてノミネートされたが、受赏はかなわなかった。戏曲‘わがファウスト’は全4幕のうち3幕までで未完、同じく戏曲‘孤独者’も3分の2までで未完となっている。

モンペリエ大学の法学部出身であり、现在のモンペリエ第3大学（文学部）には彼の名前が冠せられている。8歳年上の兄ジュールは同大学法学部教授であり、后に総长となっている。ルノワール、ドガらとの亲交もあった。

在日本的影响力

在日本，瓦雷里作为早起就理解并接受了爱因斯坦相对论的诗人而出名。二战前，瓦雷里的作品被佐藤正彰、河盛好蔵、吉田健一等人引入日本，当时刚成立不久的筑摩书房就开始出版瓦雷里的全集，但由于战事以及出版社自身原因，始终未能完成全集。

到了1960年代，《瓦雷里全集》日文版终于由佐藤正彰和铃木信太郎等人编辑出版。进入21世纪后，由清水彻和恒川邦夫等人重新翻译出版了新版全集。

堀辰雄的中篇小说《起风了》（《日语：風立ちぬ》）篇首就引用了堀翻译的瓦雷里《海滨墓园》里的诗句“纵有疾风起，人生不言弃”（日语：风立ちぬ、いざ生きめやも，法语：Le vent se lève, il faut tenter de vivre.）。

著作

保罗·瓦雷里

诗集

“アンフィオン”公演(1941年)

瓦雷里在1891-93年期间的作品收录于《旧诗帖》，此后的长篇诗《年轻的命运女神》以及1917-22年期间的作品集《魅惑》等一并结集作为《保罗·瓦雷里诗集》，出版于1929年。

诗人としてはマラルメに倾倒し、ボードレール、ジョゼ・マリア・ド・エレディア、ヴェルレーヌ、ランボーに多くを学び、音楽性に才能を示したが、古典的伝统的形式により诗作を行い、象徴主义の诗人とはみなされておらず、“（象徴派の）复雑さからヴァレリイは绮丽に洗はれている”“ヴァレリイの世界は象徴派のそれのように平易ではない”（石川淳）とも评される。诗论においてはマラルメの実験の理论化を试み、近代诗学を创设するものとも言われる。

• ‘若きパルク’La Jeune Parque 1917年
• ‘海辺の墓地’Le Cimetière marin 1920年
• ‘旧(旧)诗帖’Album des vers anciens 1920年
• ‘魅惑’Charmes 1922年

小说及其他作品

‘カイエ’‘文学’などのアフォリズム集、‘ヴァリエテ’は、各种时评・讲演笔记 他の小文で编集され5册刊行。

• ‘カイエ B’Cahier B 1910年
• ‘テスト氏との一夜’La Soirée avec monsieur Teste 1919年
• ‘ダ・ヴィンチ论’Introduction à la méthode de Léonard de Vinci 1919年
• ‘魂とダンス’L’Âme et la danse 1923年
• ‘ヴァリエテ’Variété 1924年
• ‘ロンブ’Rhumbs 1925年
• ‘ルイス宛の十五の书简’1925年
• ‘文学’La Littérature 1929年
• ‘ヴァリエテ Ⅱ’Variété II 1929年
• ‘モラリテ’Moralités 1931年
• ‘现代世界の考察’Regards sur le monde actuel 1931年、文明批评
• ‘固定観念’L’Idée fixe 1932年
• ‘ヴァリエテ Ⅲ’Variété III 1936年
• ‘ドガ・ダンス・デッサン’Degas, danse, dessin 1936年
• ‘象徴主义の存在’Existance du Symbolisme 1938年
• ‘ヴァリエテ Ⅳ’Variété IV 1938年
• ‘メランジュ’Mélange 1939年
• ‘テル・ケル’Tel quel 1941年
• ‘邪念その他’Mauvaises pensées et autres 1942年
• ‘ヴァリエテ Ⅴ’Variété V 1944年
• ‘わがファウスト’Mon Faust 1946年、最晩年の戏曲作品

全集・作品集

• 《现代世界文学全集25 瓦雷里》铃木信太郎等译、新潮社、1955年
• 《瓦雷里全集》（增补版 全12巻・补巻2）筑摩书房、1977年 - 1979年
• 《瓦雷里全集　卡伊篇》（全9巻）筑摩书房、1980年 - 1983年
• 《纪德＝瓦雷里往来书简》第1巻 1890年 - 1896年／第2巻 1897年 - 1942年、二宫正之编译、筑摩书房、1986年
• 《瓦雷里集成》（全6巻）筑摩书房、2011年2月 - 2012年7月 - 以主题为类别的新译。

  Ⅰ 与特斯特的“故事” （恒川邦夫 编译）

  Ⅱ “梦”的几何学 （冢本昌则 编译）

  Ⅲ “诗学”之探究　（田上龙也・森本淳生 编译）

  Ⅳ 精神的“哲学” （山田広昭 编译）

  Ⅴ “艺术”的肖像 （今井勉・中村俊直 编译）

  Ⅵ 与“友爱”对话 （恒川邦夫・松田浩则 编译）

• 《三声书简　1888-1890》松田浩则等译、水声社、2016年 - 内含189封与友人的往来信函

参考文献

• ドニ・ベルトレ ‘ポール・ヴァレリー　1871-1945’ 松田浩则訳

法政大学出版局<丛书ウニベルシタス>、2008年、新装版2015年

• 清水彻 ‘ヴァレリーの肖像’ 筑摩书房、2004年
• 清水彻 ‘ヴァレリー　知性と感性の相克’ 岩波新书、2010年
• 山田直 ‘ヴァレリー 人と思想’ 清水书院、1991年、新装版2016年
• ロビンソン・ヴァレリー编 ‘科学者たちのポール・ヴァレリー’ 纪伊国屋书店、1996年

  菅野昭正・恒川邦夫・松田浩则・冢本昌则訳－13名の科学者による论文集。第32回日本翻訳出版文化赏受赏

• 三浦信孝・冢本昌则编 ‘ヴァレリーにおける诗と芸术’ 水声社、2018年
• 恒川邦夫・冢本昌则 訳・解说 ‘ポール・ヴァレリー［アガート］訳・注解・论考’ 筑摩书房、1994年、遗稿の论考
• 恒川邦夫 訳・解说 ‘纯粋および応用アナーキー原理’ 筑摩丛书、1986年、※1936年-1938年の遗稿集
• 田上竜也・森本淳生编訳 ‘未完のヴァレリー　草稿と解说’ 平凡社、2004年、文学的沈黙期の遗稿集
• ‘世界の名著66　アラン　ヴァレリー’ 中央公论社・中公バックス、1980年。解说担当は河盛好蔵

関连项目

• 象徴主义
• 印象派
• ユリイカ (ポー)

外部リンク

• Template:青空文库著作者

流行文化中的引用

奥斯卡奖得主、日本导演宫崎骏2013年的动画电影作品《起风了》的法文片名即取自瓦雷里的诗歌《海滨墓园》（Le Cimetière marin）中的句子：纵有疾风起，人生不言弃（Le vent se lève, il faut tenter de vivre）。

参考条目

• 蒙彼利埃第三大学（保罗·瓦雷里大学）

外部链接

• 诗歌《海滨墓园》（法语/英语） （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）

————————————————————————————————————————

Rasul v. Bush
美国最高法院
辩论：2004April 20 判决：2004June 28
案件全名	Shafiq Rasul, et al., Petitioners v. George W. Bush, President of the United States, et al.; Fawzi Khalid Abdullah Fahad al Odah, et al., Petitioners v. United States, et al.
引注案号	542 U.S. 466 124 S. Ct. 2686; 159 L. Ed. 2d 548; 2004 U.S. LEXIS 4760; 72 U.S.L.W. 4596; 2004 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 457
既往案件	Al Odah v. United States, 321 F.3d 1134 (D.C. Cir. 2003); cert. granted, 540 U.S. 1003 (2003).
法庭判决
The degree of control exercised by the United States over the Guantanamo Bay base is sufficient to trigger the application of habeas corpus rights. The right to habeas corpus can be exercised in all dominions under the sovereign's control.
法庭意见
多数意见	Stevens 联名：O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
协同意见	Kennedy (in judgment)
不同意见	Scalia 联名：Rehnquist, Thomas

拉素尔诉布什案, 542 U.S. 466 (2004), 是2004年美国联邦最高法院作出的一起具有里程碑意义的重要判例。最高法院在本案判决中确认了被关押在关塔那摩湾拘押中心的外国人向联邦法院申请人身保护令的权利，以审查其受到的刑罚是否合法。2004年6月28日，该法院大法庭以6-3的结果推翻了联邦法院华盛顿特区巡回上诉法院的判决，原判决认为美国的联邦司法机关无权审理被关押在关塔那摩的外国人的申请案件。

本案中的第一申请人为英国公民沙菲克·拉素尔，他也是同时被关押的提普顿三公民之一。本案判决作出之前，三人已在2004年3月被引渡到英国，次日即被英国政府释放。

案件背景

军事命令

2001年9月14日，在911事件后不久，美国国会通过了《关于使用军事力量应对恐怖主义的授权》,授权美国总统发动针对恐怖主义的全球战争。对此，国务卿科林·鲍威尔及国家法务顾问威廉·霍华德·塔夫脱五世对总统建议需要遵守日内瓦公约。劳伦斯·莫里斯也建议采用纽伦堡审判中的公开听证程序。 当时担任托马斯·罗米格少将 the Judge Advocate General of the United States Army, recommended any new military tribunals be modeled on existing courts-martial.

However, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Jay Bybee, relying on the unitary executive theory developed by Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo, advised the President in a series of memos that he could hold enemy combatants abroad, indefinitely, without Congressional oversight, and free from judicial review. On November 13, 2001, President George W. Bush signed a military order titled the Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism, which sought to detain and try enemy combatants by military commissions under Presidential authority alone.

Capture and detainment

The various plaintiffs were taken to Guantanamo Bay for different reasons, but were generally captured or arrested during the United States invasion of Afghanistan.

The US Military transferred Rasul and Asif Iqbal, both British citizens, and David Hicks, an Australian citizen, to Guantanamo Bay in December 2001. Each denied voluntarily joining any terrorist forces. As noted by the District Court, they did not deny having fought for the Taliban, but claimed that if they did take up arms, it was only when being attacked and in self-defense. Rasul and Iqbal say they were with the Taliban because they were taken captive. Hicks is silent on the matter in court filings, but his father, in filing the brief, said that he believed that his son had joined the Taliban forces.

The twelve Kuwaitis, combined in Al Odah v. United States, claimed that they were in Pakistan and Afghanistan giving humanitarian aid. They were seized by villagers seeking bounties and "sold" to the United States (US) forces. The US transferred them to Guantanamo Bay starting in January 2002.

Mamdouh Habib, the plaintiff in Habib v. Bush, was arrested by Pakistani authorities on October 5, 2001, two days before the fighting began.

Procedural history

Court petitions

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) was the first organization to file two petitions, Rasul v. Bush and Habib v. Bush, challenging the U.S. government's practice of holding foreign nationals in detention indefinitely who were captured in Afghanistan during the war against the Taliban regime and al-Qaida. The government had designated the detainees as enemy combatants and did not allow them access to counsel, the right to a trial, or knowledge of the charges against them.

On February 19, 2002, Guantanamo detainee Shafiq Rasul, a British citizen, petitioned in federal court for a writ of habeas corpus to review the legality of his detention. Guantanamo detainee Mamdouh Habib, an Australian citizen, also filed a petition.

These cases were each filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the court decided them together, consolidating them under Rasul v. Bush. Each of the filings alleged that the government had not allowed the detainee to speak at all to friends, family or lawyers, and had not given him any hearing whatsoever on the question of whether he was an enemy combatant in the war.

U.S. District Court

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly denied the detainees' petitions on July 30, 2002, finding that aliens in Cuba had no access to U.S. courts.

Citing Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950), in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that U.S. courts had no jurisdiction over German war criminals held in a U.S.-administered German prison, the District Court ruled that U.S. courts have jurisdiction only in a territory where the U.S. has sovereignty. Because the lease with Cuba regarding Guantanamo Bay stated that Cuba technically has "ultimate sovereignty", the court held Guantanamo Bay could not be considered a sovereign territory of the United States and therefore foreign nationals could not be given a trial in the U.S. The plaintiffs pointed out that the U.S. has all effective powers in the area.

U.S. Court of Appeals

In Al Odah v. United States a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit including Judge A. Raymond Randolph, Judge Merrick Garland, and Judge Stephen F. Williams affirmed on March 11, 2003.

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of the United States, over the Government's objections, agreed in November 2003 to hear the cases of the Guantánamo detainees, namely Rasul v. Bush, which was consolidated with al Odah v. Bush (the latter represented twelve Kuwaiti men).

Release of Rasul and Iqbal

On March 9, 2004, two years after they were first detained, the U.S. released Rasul and Iqbal to the United Kingdom with no charges filed, along with three other British citizen detainees. The British government had been pressing the United States for the return of its citizens and legal residents. The next day, the UK government released all five men without charge.

Oral arguments

One-hour of oral arguments were heard on April 20, where former-Circuit Chief Judge John Joseph Gibbons appeared for the detainees and Theodore Olson, the Solicitor General of the United States, personally appeared for the Government.

During the oral arguments the following points came up:

• Many of the Justices' questions indicated a belief that Johnson v. Eisentrager was immaterial to the jurisdictional question at hand, while the government argued that it was material. Justice Stevens noted that the Ahrens v. Clark decision, the basis of the Eisentrager decision, had since been largely reversed in Braden (1973), and thus relevant parts of Eisentrager may no longer apply.
• Justice Souter noted that the ability of a U.S. citizen to get a trial may necessarily imply that the court has jurisdiction in that geographic area, since jurisdiction is largely a geographic and sovereignty matter. Since the government had said it would not challenge 'habeas corpus' by a U.S. citizen in Guantanamo Bay, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), this could establish jurisdiction at the base.
• The court had concern that there is a gray area where certain types of cases would fall through the cracks, because only the U.S. military appeared to have jurisdiction. On the other hand, Justice Scalia noted, it may be possible, and better, for Congress to remedy that situation, as they have deliberative powers the court does not.

Quotes

Justice Scalia regarding the purpose of jurisdiction:

The Constitution requires jurisdiction—the Constitution requires that an American citizen who has the protection of the Constitution have some manner of vindicating his rights under the Constitution.

Justice Breyer on whether to deny jurisdiction to citizens outside the U.S.

So what I'm thinking now, assuming that it's very hard to interpret Eisentrager, is that if we go with you, it has a virtue of clarity. There is a clear rule. Not a citizen outside the United States; you don't get your foot in the door. But against you is that same fact. It seems rather contrary to an idea of a constitution with three branches that the executive would be free to do whatever they want, whatever they want without a check.

Justice Scalia on whether the courts or Congress are better suited to rewrite laws:

Can we hold hearings to determine the problems that are bothering you? I mean, we have to take your word for what the problems are. We can't call witnesses and see what the real problems are, can we, in creating this new, substantive rule that we're going to let the courts create? Congress could do all that, though, couldn't it? ...

If it wanted to change the habeas statute, it could make all sorts of refined modifications about issues that we know nothing whatever about because we have only lawyers before us, we have no witnesses, we have no cross-examination, we have no investigative staff. And we should be the ones, Justice Breyer suggests, to draw up this reticulated system to preserve our military from intervention by the courts.

Opinion of the Court

On June 28, 2004, the Supreme Court of the United States decided against the Government. Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer, held that the detainees had a statutory right to petition federal courts for habeas review.

That same day, the Supreme Court ruled against the Government in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the four justice plurality opinion finding that an American citizen detained in Guantanamo had a constitutional right to petition federal courts for habeas review under the Due Process Clause.

Quoting Lord Mansfield and William Blackstone, Justice Stevens reasoned that common law courts exercise habeas jurisdiction over all dominions under the sovereign's control.

Justice Kennedy's concurrence in judgment

Justice Anthony Kennedy concurred only in the judgment. While refusing to join the majority's opinion's view of "automatic statutory authority", Justice Kennedy felt federal-court jurisdiction is permitted, "in light of the status of Guantanamo Bay and the indefinite pretrial detention of detainees".

Justice Scalia's dissent

Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Justice Clarence Thomas, filed a dissenting opinion. Attacking the majority's statutory interpretation Justice Scalia wrote, "for this Court to create such a monstrous scheme in time of war, and in frustration of our military commanders' reliance upon clearly stated prior law, is judicial adventurism of the worst sort."

Subsequent developments

The United States Government announced that it planned to charge Hicks and Habib before a military commission. Habib was released in January 2005, after the Washington Post reported his extraordinary rendition from Pakistan to Egypt by the CIA soon after his arrest. He was held and interrogated under torture in Egypt for five months before being returned to Pakistan, and then transferred to military custody and Guantanamo Bay.

Justice Rutledge's influence

Directly after law school, John Paul Stevens worked as a law clerk to Justice Wiley Blount Rutledge. In Ahrens v. Clark (1948), the Court held that no federal court had been given territorial jurisdiction over Ellis Island, provoking Justice Rutledge to file a dissent Stevens helped draft.

In 1956, Stevens wrote a book chapter where he quoted Justice Rutledge's dissent from In re Tomoyuki Yamashita (1946): "It is not too early, it is never too early, for the nation to steadfastly follow its great constitutional traditions, none older or more universally protective against unbridled power than due process of law in the trial and punishment of men, this is, of all men, whether citizens, aliens, alien enemies or enemy belligerents. It can become too late."

Justice Stevens quoted the Ahrens dissent approvingly in Rasul, fifty-six years after he had drafted it as a clerk.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006)

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz responded by creating "Combatant Status Review Tribunals" to determine if detainees were unlawful combatants. Detainee's habeas petitions to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia were consolidated into two cases. In one, Judge Richard J. Leon rejected the detainees petition because they "have no cognizable Constitutional rights" on January 19, 2005. In the other, Judge Joyce Hens Green granted the detainees petition, finding the CSRTs were insufficient to protect the detainees rights under the Geneva Convention and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution on January 31, 2005.

On July 15, 2005, a panel of the D.C. Circuit made of Judge A. Raymond Randolph then-Circuit Judge John Roberts and Judge Stephen F. Williams vacated the lower rulings and threw out the detainees' petitions. On November 7, 2005, the Supreme Court agreed to review that judgment. On December 30, 2005, Congress responded by passing the Detainee Treatment Act, which changed the statute to explicitly strip detainees of any right to petition courts for habeas review.

On June 29, 2006, the Supreme Court decided against the Government in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Justice Stevens, writing for a five justice majority, found that courts had jurisdiction to hear those detainees' petitions which had been filed before Congress enacted the DTA and that the CSRTs violated the Geneva Conventions standards enacted in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Boumediene v. Bush (2008)

Congress responded by passing the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which gave statutory authorization to the CSRTs and was explicit in retroactively stripping detainees of any right to petition courts for habeas review. On February 20, 2007, D.C. Circuit Judge A. Raymond Randolph, joined by Judge David B. Sentelle upheld the Act and dismissed the detainees' petitions, over the dissent of Judge Judith W. Rogers.

On June 12, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court decided against the Government in Boumediene v. Bush. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a five justice majority, held that the detainees had a right to petition federal courts for writs of habeas corpus under the United States Constitution. Justice Antonin Scalia strongly dissented, writing that the Court's decision, "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed".

See also

• Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950)
• Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)
• Rumsfeld v. Padilla
• Boumediene v. Bush (2008) and Al Odah v. United States (consolidated)
• Munaf v. Geren (2008)
• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 542
• List of United States Supreme Court cases
• Ex parte Milligan
• Ex parte Quirin

Further reading

• Martin, David A. Offshore Detainees and the Role of Courts after Rasul v. Bush: The Underappreciated Virtues of Deferential Review. Boston College Third World Law Journal. 2005, 25: 125. ISSN 0276-3583. 
• Osborn, Meredith B. Rasul v. Bush: Federal Courts Have Jurisdiction over Habeas Challenges and Other Claims Brought by Guantanamo Detainees. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review. 2005, 40: 265. ISSN 0017-8039. 
• Roosevelt, Kermit. Guantanamo and the Conflict of Laws: Rasul and Beyond (PDF). University of Pennsylvania Law Review (The University of Pennsylvania Law Review). 2005, 153 (6): 2017–2071. JSTOR 4150656. doi:10.2307/4150656. 
• Thai, Joseph. The Law Clerk Who Wrote Rasul v. Bush: John Paul Stevens's Influence from World War II to the War on Terror (PDF). Virginia Law Review. 2006, 92: 501. ISSN 0042-6601. 
• Wilke, Christiane. War v. Justice: Terrorism Cases, Enemy Combatants, and Political Justice in U.S. Courts. Politics & Society. 2005, 33 (4): 637–669. S2CID 154518753. doi:10.1177/0032329205280926. 

External links

• Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004)的文本可参见：Justia · Findlaw
• Rasul v. Bush and other cases, Center for Constitutional Rights website
• "Supreme Court Decision goes against Bush", CDI
• Briefs and papers filed for Rasul v. Bush
• information about the filing of the brief, Center for Constitutional Rights
• "Rasul v. Bush", commentary, Duke University School of Law

---