Case Studies of Unlawful Arrest of US Citizens Without Charges or Trial: Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld and Padilla vs. Rumsfeld

This case is one that changed the way the United States Police forces will work forever. Every human in the world has natural born rights. Even people who have been arrested have rights, ‘The rights of the accused’. These rights are the main point of this court case.

This case mainly deals with the interpretation of our Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unlawful search and seizures. What we can learn from this case are: the differences in court systems, the elements that comprise the Fourth Amendment, and the controversies surrounding it. The text relevant to this case can be found within the first six chapters of our textbook, with an emphasis on Chapter 6 “Criminal Law and Business”.

Was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that the application of military tribunals to citizens when civilian courts are still operating is unconstitutional. It was also

The reauthorization of Defense Department funding was expected, in part because it has happened every year for the past 50 years (Fox-Rouch, 2012); however, the most recent version generated considerable controversy among civil and human rights advocates due to a provision that allows indefinite detention of American citizens (Fox-Rouch, 2012; Kuipers, 2012).

POL 201 Week 5 Final Paper Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror

Did you know, as American taxpayers, maintaining the prison at Guantánamo has costed $4.8 billion since it had opened in 2002? Well this al back to “ The Global War on Terror” under the Bush administration that,. response to the 9/11 attacks, targeted middle eastern regions of the world;, collecting men from left to right by heavily armed American soldiers. Unfortunately, some of them are destined to pay for another man’s crime by serving time in Guantanamo Bay. Guantanamo Bay, located within a naval base in Cuba, became a facility purposed to hold alleged enemy combatants and terrorists alike. Because of later documented injustices reported against detainees, it gained negative spotlight by both citizens and world leaders. When Obama succeeded in presidency, closing the facility became one of his priorities for a number of reasons.

This is when the third amendment came in. It gave the Americans the right to decline these requests. Soldiers are no longer quartered in homes. The troops now have bases where there are barracks and homes of their own to stay in. The fourth amendment protects the public from unreasonable searches and seizures. Before anyone can arrest someone or search their home, the police must show a judge a good reason for doing

In examining the following two cases I will demonstrate that the US Supreme Court is consistent in recognizing an individual’s 4th and 5th Amendment rights. What’s more, we will look at what constitutes a successful interrogation. Questioning the state of mind and intent on the part of law enforcement during an interrogation and ask if that intent is in violation of an individual’s constitutional rights.

“As a result of this speech, and the position of President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, it is now impossible for the accused to receive a fair trial. All participants in the process will be inevitably influenced by the assertions made in this speech, many of which are inconsistent with the presumption of innocence. Even assuming the unlawful command influence was not intentional, it nonetheless deprives my client of his constitutional right to a fair trial.”

In my opinion, the United States in the case of Bailey was not in the wrong to detain Polo aka Chunon Bailey while searching his apartment. I believe the officers did everything in their power to make sure they had valid evidence before requesting a search warrant for Polo's apartment and good reasoning to detain him at the crime scene. In Michigan v. Summers the court allowed the officers, who were conducting the search, to detain the tenant while the search is being done. Consequently, the court did not state when the detainment should occur, so using the Fourth Amendment as a model for reasonableness, the court of appeals decided that officers could detain a tenant who leaves the vicinity, considering that the detainment happened in a timely

A paradox has always exists between the issue of civil liberties and national security. Democracy creates civil liberties that allow the freedom of association, expression, as well as movement, but there are some people use such liberal democracy to plan and execute violence, to destabilize State structures. It illustrates the delicate balance existing between reducing civil liberties to enhance security in a state. States have detained suspects for years and have also conducted extensive privacy incursions as strategies to combat terror, however it risks violation of civil liberties. This essay discusses the extent to which a state should be allowed to restrict civil liberties for the enhancement of national security and not abandon democratic values. It looks at aspects of the legal response to terrorism in the United States after the 9/11 attack.

The Supreme Court speaks not only through its rulings in cases argued before it, but also through its choice not to hear certain cases -- the ones denied certiorari, in legal lingo. By refusing to hear claims brought by victims of Bush-era torture and detention practices, and failing to decisively reject the government's array of bad excuses for denying them a modicum of justice, the Court in recent years has sent an appalling message of indifference and impunity. These missing cases constitute a profound stain on the court's record, and they are worth recalling on this week's tenth anniversary of John Roberts's swearing-in as Chief

Patrisse Cullors, a hostile to imprisonment extremist who had set up the Black Lives Matter Network alongside Alicia Garza and Opal Tometi, started to stress that the development was praising the very thing she had been crusading against; she and Garza were really debating this when Michael Brown's shooting moved over the TV news. Ferguson would put this question on hold, however the way that the main mass development against mass detainment would have, as one of its focal requests, more detainment would remain a state of

In the United States, one of the major methods in obtaining crucial information has been through the use of Guantanamo Bay. While many have condemned of the torture that is believed to occur there, not only does Guantanamo Bay comply with national and international standards, but it also complies with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (Meese 1) which states

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is originally a naval base that was once used to house detention facilities for Haitian and Cuban refugees fleeing to the United States. It was also used as a refueling station for Navy ships. It was then converted into a high level detention facility to house enemy troops captured in the War on Terror campaign by Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfield. It has three main camps that house the prisoners. These prisoners of war were later referred to as enemy combatants. They were excluded from the prisoner of war statutes of the Geneva Convention because of their involvement in a foreign terrorist organization and therefore earning themselves the title of terrorists. The Guantanamo Bay Detention Center served as the perfect location to send these terrorists. It allowed the United States to strip them of any due process or protection that is provided by US law. Due to its location, being in foreign territory they are only subjected to military law. They are close enough for them to be monitored without interference of intentional agencies or international oversight. Furthermore, the US Government is holding these men without due process because they are deemed too dangerous to be released into the public because of their associations with terrorist organizations and possession of valuable information relating to National Security such as location of key members of a terrorist groups, whereabouts. However, the United States cannot release those