Essay on Hamdi et al. v. Rumsfeld

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

Perhaps, according to Bernard Schwartz, the greatest failure of American law during World War II may be illustrated by the case of Fred Toyosaburo Korematsu. As graphically described in 1944 by a member of the bench, his case is one that is unique in our system:

“The Warren Court’s decision to expand federal habeas corpus helped fuel the criminal justice revolution of the 1960’s” (Stephens & Scheb II 2012,2008,2003). Habeas corpus is Latin for “you have the body” and the writ of habeas corpus is a “judicial order issued to an official holding someone in custody, requiring the official to bring the prisoner to court for the purpose of allowing the court to determine whether that person is being held legally” (Stephens & Scheb II 2012,2008,2003). For example in the case of Fay v. Noia (1963) a prisoner appealed to a federal district

In this court case Clarence Gideon was denied a request to have an attorney who could represent him because he couldn’t afford one. Gideon was charged with breaking and entering into a pool hall in Panama City, Florida. In the court case the judge from Florida told him that they only gave attorneys to defendants who may be charged with the death penalty. Gideon was sentenced to five years in prison; he then filed for habeas corpus saying that his sentence was unconstitutional since he didn’t have a defense attorney his trial. The

Yaser Esam Hamdi is an American citizen born in Louisiana in 1980. In 2001, Hamdi was captured by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and turned over to the United States as an enemy combatant. The United States government detained and interrogated Hamdi in Afghanistan until they moved him to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The U.S. government found out that Hamdi was an American citizen and transferred him to a brig in Norfolk, Virginia and then later to a brig in Charleston, South Carolina. The government labeled Hamdi as an enemy combatant and said that justified the holding of Hamdi indefinitely without any formal charges. The injury suffered by Hamdi is that he has been interrogated and being held in prison indefinitely with no formal charge. Along with that, Hamdi had not been granted any of his rights as an American citizen. In June 2002, Esam Fouad Hamdi, Yaser Hamdi’s father filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a federal district court. The district court appointed a public defender to Hamdi and ordered for him to have access to Hamdi, so the government appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals. The U.S. Court of Appeals sided with the government stating that the district court had failed to respect the government’s security. The case then went back to the district court, where the decision was that the evidence set forth by the government was not enough to detain Hamdi. The district court then reversed its ruling because

The Alien Tort Claims Act was enacted in 1789 in order to protect ambassadors and to try pirates in court. The was not used often until it was rediscovered during the 1990’s as a way for labor and progressive lawyers a way to bring suits against the MNCs anywhere in the world, not just in America. There have been over 125 cases in over 60 countries, only two cases have ever actually made it to court. Most cases are either dismissed early or the lawyers settle outside of court(Bethel, 2017).

of four to two, and fined twenty­five dollars ( two hundred and ninety five dollars in today's

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 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court decided, again, to review whether or not the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba may file a writ of habeas corpus giving those prisoners the power to challenge the lawfulness of their confinement. It is highly unusual for the Supreme Court to revisit such a decision once a case is rejected so the move created quite a buzz in the world of politics. In the article Primer: Guantanamo Detainees’ Rights, Ann Hawke explains the history behind this issue and provides clarity about its intentions.

Dissent by Justice Brennan—When determining its personal jurisdiction over a non—resident(defendant) a court may consider the interest of the forum state in proceedings with the

As indicated by “THE CONCEPT OF SOVEREIGN OR GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY”, a state may not be sued in tort without its assent. In spite of the fact that the regulation is subjected to rehash legal difficulties, is held fast to in countless. It is the dispute of this article that the explanation behind the guideline no more exists and that it ought to, subsequently, be nullified as a controlling legitimate standard. Be that as it may, it is presented that sovereign resistance abuses the due procedure and equivalent security provisions of the United States Constitution.

The review analyses the doctrine of the writ of the habeas corpus. It specifically shows the extent of the justice the writ provided to the defendant.

“How powerful is the law? The laws of armed conflict—grandly and euphemistically called "international humanitarian law"—have never been better cultivated by so many jurists, yet somehow hundreds of thousands of Iraqis managed to die after our 2003 invasion, with a perhaps greater number perishing due to the economic sanctions between our Gulf Wars” (Madar, 2014). Within today’s society we have criminals of all kinds. These criminal’s may truly not be criminals, they are just labeled with this term and held under lock and key until proven not guilty. Here in the United States they claim one is innocent until proven guilty. This is why Habeas Corpus was put into place, to protect said criminals from being detained for no apparent

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

[ 1 ]. Rebecca M.M. Wallace and Ola Martin-Ortega, International Law, sweet & Maxwell(2009), p.7