Jump to content

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CapitalR (talk | contribs) at 19:04, 13 April 2006 (→Supreme Court ruling: Fixed comma, link name). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued March 28, 2006

Decided Not yet decided

Full case name: Salim Ahmed Hamdan v. Donald Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense)
Citations:
Prior history:
Subsequent history:
Holding
Case not yet decided
Court membership
Chief Justice: None (John G. Roberts Jr. recused himself)
Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
Majority by: Case not yet decided
Joined by: Case not yet decided
Dissent by: Case not yet decided
Laws applied
Case not yet decided

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld is 2006 United States Supreme Court case with numerous significant constitutional implications. The case questions the legality of Guantanamo military commissions set up by the Bush administration, whether the United States Congress has the authority to pass legislation preventing the Supreme Court from hearing the case of an accused combatant before his military commission takes place, and whether courts can enforce the articles of the 1949 Geneva Convention treaty.[1]

Background

Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a citizen of Yemen, was captured during the invasion of Afghanistan and detained by the United States at the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In July of 2004 he was charged with conspiracy to commit terrorism and the Bush administration made arrangements to try him in front of a military commission. Hamdan filed a petition of habeas corpus, arguing that he was being held without due process. Following the Supreme Court ruling of another case, Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld, Hamden was granted a review before the Combatant Status Review Tribunal, which determined that he was eligible for detention by the United States as an enemy combatant or person of interest.[1]

District and Appeals Court rulings

After reviewing Hamdan's petition of habeas corpus, Washington DC District Court judge James Robertson ruled in Hamdan's favor, stating that the United States could not hold a military commission unless it was first shown that he was not a prisoner of war. [2][3][4] This distinction is required for a military commission to proceed according to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, of which the United States is a signatory. A three judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Arthur Raymond Randolph, John G. Roberts, Jr. (now the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court), and Stephen Fain Williams, reversed this decision on July 15, 2005. [5] Justice Randolph wrote the decision, and cited the following reason for the legality of the military commissions:

  1. Military commissions are legitimate forums to try enemy combatants because they have been approved by Congress.
  2. The 1949 Geneva Convention is a treaty between nations and as such it does not confer individual rights and remedies.
  3. Even if the Convention could be enforced in U.S. courts, it would not be of assistance to Hamdan at the time because, for a conflict such as the war against al-Qaeda that is not between two countries, it guarantees only a certain standard of judicial procedure--a "competent tribunal"--without speaking to the jurisdiction in which the prisoner must be tried.
  4. Under the terms of the 1949 Convention, al Qaeda and its members are not covered.

They ruled that the president has the constitutional authority to try Hamdan because Congress authorized such activity by statute. In addition, the court of appeals ruled that the judicial branch of the United States government cannot enforce the Geneva Conventions treaty, thus invalidating Hamdan's argument that he cannot be tried until after his prisoner of war status is determined.[1]

Supreme Court ruling

On November 7, 2005, the Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari to hear the case.[6][7] The petition was filed on behalf of Hamdan by Neal Katyal of Georgetown University Law Center and Lt. Commander Charles Swift of the U.S. Navy.

The case was argued before the court on March 28, 2006. Mr. Katyal argued on behalf of Hamdan and Paul D. Clement, the Solicitor General of the United States, argued on behalf of the government.[8] John G. Roberts Jr., the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, recused himself from this case, since he ruled on it when he sat on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. A decision is not expected until the early summer of 2006.

Critics called for the recusal of Justice Antonin Scalia since he allegedly made comments about the case prior to oral arguments.[9] Scalia chose not to recuse himself from the case.

References

  1. ^ a b c Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Duke Law's Supreme Court Online, 2005.
  2. ^ Bin Laden's driver outmanoeuvres Guantanamo trials, Sydney Morning Herald, November 9 2004
  3. ^ Court bars efforts to try terrorist before military commissions, Washington Legal Foundation, November 9 2004
  4. ^ High Court Sidesteps Guantanamo Bay Case, Los Angeles Times, January 19 2005
  5. ^ United States Court of Appeals, DC Circuit: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, July 18, 2005.
  6. ^ Supreme Court to hear challenge to Gitmo tribunals Jurist, University of Pittsburg School of Law November 7, 2005.
  7. ^ Supreme Court to Hear Tribunals Challenge, The Guardian, November 7, 2005
  8. ^ Hamdan, Salim v. Rumsfeld, Donald (Secy. of Defense) Medill, Northwestern University, November 11, 2005.
  9. ^ Report: Scalia against rights for Gitmo detainees, CNN.com, March 26, 2006

`

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld&oldid=48313058"