Enemy Combatants Scenarios

FACTS: In this case, an American citizen was described as an “Enemy Combatant” due to his involvement with illegal terrorist activities. Due to the circumstances, the minority opinion favored to protect its nation and not allow Hamdi to contest

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

Rule: Since she is considered an enemy combatant the United States government does not believe she gets her 5th amendment rights of a fair trial in front of a jury of peers and her right to have an attorney. The government argues that the Executive Branch has the right, during wartime, to declare a person who fights against the United States an enemy combatant, thus restricting their access

On U.S. territory and the government argues that they therefore have neither constitutional rights nor the rights guaranteed under the Geneva Convention, the international treaty governing detention during wartime. Basic principles like due process,

the Act suspends the right of "unlawful enemy combatants" to present, or to have presented in

The detention of petitioners for trial by military commission does not violate the Constitution of the United States. Congress and President, under the Articles of War and Executive Orders, may constitutionally place unlawful combatants on trial before a military commission for offenses against the law of war. Unlawful combatants have traditionally been recognized as individuals who act as secret spies or enemy combatants without uniform who infiltrate behind military lines for the purpose of gaining secret information or conducting “sabotage” against a nation’s military forces. The saboteurs are properly characterized as unlawful combatants because, while they are members of a sovereign nation’s military force, they acted secretly and removed their uniforms for the purpose of infiltrating and sabotaging the United States military. While lawful enemy combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces, unlawful combatants are additionally subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for violations of the law of war. The Articles of War specifically provide for the trial of unlawful combatants by military commission for offenses against the law of war. Additionally, the Constitution gives the President the power to wage war declared by Congress, carry into effect all laws passed by Congress for the conduct of war and for the government and regulation of the armed forces, as well as all laws that

ISSUE(S): Does Yaser Hamdi have standing as a United States citizen to contest his detention once labeled as an “enemy combatant?”

Facts: Yaser Esam Hamdi, an American citizen was detained by the Northern Alliance forces on the battle fields of Afghanistan in late 2001. Hamdi was then consider to be an enemy combatant, in other words a traitor, in which he was held by the Department of Defense. Hamdi’s father then, petition for a federal district court for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his son had no wrong and was unlawfully held. However, the court countered with, “they had the right to detain him due to war time”. In addition, the president, George W. Bush took action and said to use “all and appropriate force” and those designated as “enemy combatant”.

“An enemy combatant for the purposes of this order shall mean an individual who was part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaida forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the Unites States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who has committed a belligerent act or who has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces” (Foley, 2007).

The United States Congress has endowed the president with authoritative powers to use necessary force against individuals posing significant threats found to have planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks in conjunction with September 11th atrocities. Those that have been placed within the custody of the United States as a result of terrorist activities will often times file Writs, including Habeas Corpus, to invoked the interest and interpretation of their situation by the US Supreme Court Justice’s . Since the tragic 9/11 attacks, judiciary judgments have often

The United States has a comprehensive and vigorously protected system for ensuring the rights of defendants in criminal trials conducted in the State and Federal courts. Among these protections are the right to an attorney, the right to remain silent in lieu of making self-incriminating statements, the right to a trial by an impartial jury, the presumption of innocence, and the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional rights of the accused. The brave men and women of the United States armed forces have laid their lives on the line in defense of these rights and the others that we enjoy as American citizens, and yet they are systematically denied these same rights by the military justice system.

Today, I will seek to prove that not only does the United States have a history of torturing terrorism suspects by methods including waterboarding, sleep deprivation, solitary confinement, and threats to the self or the family, but also that the use of such torture is illegal according to United States and international law. I will also argue that the United States is guilty of the illegal extraordinary rendition of terrorist suspects. Further, I will argue that current standards for investigating terrorism suspects jeopardizes civil liberties under section 215 of the USA Patriot Act.

Today, I stand before the members of the court to request you support the opinion of on Hamdi v. Rumsfeld” (U.S. Supreme Court, June 28, 2004); who believes that Congress does not have the authority to detent person found to be an “enemy combatant” of the United States of American for an undetermined amount of time.

In 2002, the Bush administration adopted the already established Guantanamo Bay Naval Base to detain suspected terrorist from Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and members of other terrorist organizations during the Global War on Terrorism. In 2002, the first 20 detainees arrived at Guantanamo Bay and they were considered “Unlawful Enemy Combatants” and not “Prisoners of War” because they did not fall under the Geneva Conventions. An estimated 779 detainees have been held at Guantanamo Bay and an around 140 remain.

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