Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2006 U.S. Supreme Court case

For the case involving a United States citizen, see Hamdi v. Rumsfeld .

2006 United States Supreme Court case

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the Geneva Conventions ratified by the U.S.

Hamdan raises several legal issues: Whether the United States Congress may pass legislation preventing the Supreme Court from hearing the case of an accused combatant before his military commission takes place; whether the special military commissions established by the executive branch violated federal law (including the UCMJ and treaty obligations ); and whether courts can enforce the articles of the Geneva Conventions.

After hearing oral arguments on March 28, 2006, on June 29, 2006, the Court issued a 5–3 decision holding that it had jurisdiction; that the administration lacked either the constitutional power or congressional authorization to establish these particular military commissions; that, absent such authority, the military commissions had to comply with the "ordinary laws" of the U.S. and of war, which include the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions incorporated therein; and that Hamdan's trial, having violated the rights and procedures under both bodies of law, was illegal.

Background

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")
]

Main article: Salim Ahmed Hamdan

The plaintiff was Salim Ahmed Hamdan , a citizen of Yemen who worked as a bodyguard and chauffeur for Osama bin Laden . Hamdan had formerly worked in Afghanistan on an agricultural project that Bin Laden had developed. Hamdan was captured by militia forces during the invasion of Afghanistan in the fall of 2001 and turned over to the United States . In 2002, he was sent by the U.S. to its new Guantanamo Bay detention camp at its naval base in Cuba .

In July 2004, Hamdan was charged with conspiracy to commit terrorism and the Bush administration made arrangements to try him before a military commission , established by the Department of Defense under Military Commission Order No. 1 of March 21, 2002. He was assigned a defense counsel, LCDR Charles D. Swift from the Navy JAG , who with a legal team filed a petition for Hamdan in US District Court for a writ of habeas corpus , challenging the constitutionality of the military commission, and saying that it lacked the protections required under the Geneva Conventions and United States Uniform Code of Military Justice .

Following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in _Rasul v. Bush _ (2004), which established that detainees had the right of _habeas corpus _ to challenge their detention, Hamdan was granted a review before the Combatant Status Review Tribunal . It determined that he was eligible for detention by the United States as an enemy combatant or person of interest.

The defendants in this case included many United States government officials allegedly responsible for Hamdan's detention; the short name of the case includes only the first-named defendant, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld .

District and Appeals Court rulings

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: District and Appeals Court rulings")
]

After reviewing Hamdan's habeas petition, Judge James Robertson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in the detainee's favor. He found that the United States could not hold a military commission unless it was first shown that the detainee was not a prisoner of war .

On July 15, 2005, a United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit three-judge panel: A. Raymond Randolph , John Roberts and Stephen F. Williams , unanimously reversed the decision of the District Court. Judge Randolph, who wrote the decision, cited the following reasons for the legality of the military commission:

1. Military commissions are legitimate forums to try enemy combatants because they have been approved by Congress .
2. The Geneva Convention is a treaty between nations and as such it does not confer individual rights and remedies.
3. Even if the Geneva Convention could be enforced in U.S. courts, it would not be of assistance to Hamdan at the time because the war against al-Qaeda was not between two countries, and the Convention 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 Geneva Convention, al Qaeda and its members are not covered.
5. Congress authorized such activity by statute .
6. The judicial branch of the United States government cannot enforce the Convention, thus invalidating Hamdan's argument that he cannot be tried until after his prisoner-of-war status is determined.

Supreme Court decision

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Supreme Court decision")
]

On November 7, 2005, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear the case. 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 , an alumnus of Seattle University School of Law . The Seattle law firm Perkins Coie provided the additional legal counsel for Hamdan.

The case was argued before the court on March 28, 2006. Katyal argued on behalf of Hamdan, and Paul Clement , the Solicitor General of the United States , argued on behalf of the government. Chief Justice Roberts recused himself because he had previously ruled on this case as part of the three judge panel on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit . Justice Antonin Scalia had made allegedly improper comments about the decision of the case prior to hearing oral arguments, such as, "I'm not

…