Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
Procedural History:
Appeal from circuit court holding that a military commission violated a detainee's rights under the Geneva Convention. A u.s. military commission began proceedings against Hamdan (P), who was captured in Afghanistan. Hamdan (P) challenged the authority of the commission.
Overview:
-Salim Ahmed Hamdan (P) was captured by Mghani forces and imprisoned by the U.S. military in Guantanamo Bay. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court to challenge his detention. Before the district court ruled on the petition, a U.S. military commission began proceedings against Hamdan (P), which designated him an enemy combatant. Hamdan (P) challenged the authority of the commission, arguing that the commission trial would violate his rights under Article 102 of the Geneva Convention, which provides that a "prisoner of war can be validly sentenced only if the sentence has been pronounced by the same courts according to the same procedure as in the case of members of the armed forces of the Detaining Power."
-The district court granted Hamdan's (P) habeas petition, ruling that a hearing to determine whether he was a prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention must have taken place before he could be tried by a military commission.
-The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, finding that the Geneva Convention could not be enforced in federal court and that the establishment of military tribunals had been authorized by Congress and was therefore not unconstitutional.
Issue:
(1) Was the military commission established to try those deemed "enemy combatants" for alleged war crimes in the War on Terror authorized by the Congress or the inherent powers of the President? (2) May the rights protected by the Geneva Convention be enforced in federal court through habeas corpus petitions?'
Rule:
1. the military commission established to try those deemed “enemy combatants” for alleged war crimes in the GWOT was not authorized by congress or the inherent powers of the president
2. the rights protected by the Geneva convention may be enforced in federal court through habeas corpus petitions.
Analysis:
Many U.S. and international human rights organizations have determined that violations might occur through the non-application of the Geneva Convention to detainees in the U.S. war on terrorism.
Outcome:
(1) No. The military commission established to try those deemed "enemy combatants" for alleged war crimes in the War on Terror was not authorized by the Congress or the inherent powers of the President. Neither an act of Congress nor the inherent powers of the Executive Branch laid out in the Constitution expressly authorized the sort of military commission at issue in this case. Absent that express authorization, the commission had to comply with the ordinary laws of the United States (D) and the laws of war.
(2) Yes. The rights protected by the Geneva Convention may be enforced in federal court through habeas corpus petitions. The Geneva Convention, as a part of the ordinary laws of war, could be enforced by the U.S. Supreme Court, along with the statutory Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), since the military commission was not authorized. Hamdan's (P) exclusion from certain parts of his trial deemed classified by the military commission violated both of these, and the trial was therefore illegal. Article 3, or «common Article 3" as it is sometimes known, does apply to Hamdan (P), despite a holding to the contrary by the court of appeals, and arguments to the contrary by the government. Common Article 3 provides minimal protection to individuals associated with neither a signatory nor a non-signatory "Power" who are involved in a conflict in the territory of a signatory. Common Article 3 is applicable here and requires that Hamdan (P) be tried by a "regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."
Procedural History:
Appeal from circuit court holding that a military commission violated a detainee's rights under the Geneva Convention. A u.s. military commission began proceedings against Hamdan (P), who was captured in Afghanistan. Hamdan (P) challenged the authority of the commission.
Overview:
-Salim Ahmed Hamdan (P) was captured by Mghani forces and imprisoned by the U.S. military in Guantanamo Bay. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court to challenge his detention. Before the district court ruled on the petition, a U.S. military commission began proceedings against Hamdan (P), which designated him an enemy combatant. Hamdan (P) challenged the authority of the commission, arguing that the commission trial would violate his rights under Article 102 of the Geneva Convention, which provides that a "prisoner of war can be validly sentenced only if the sentence has been pronounced by the same courts according to the same procedure as in the case of members of the armed forces of the Detaining Power."
-The district court granted Hamdan's (P) habeas petition, ruling that a hearing to determine whether he was a prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention must have taken place before he could be tried by a military commission.
-The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, finding that the Geneva Convention could not be enforced in federal court and that the establishment of military tribunals had been authorized by Congress and was therefore not unconstitutional.
Issue:
(1) Was the military commission established to try those deemed "enemy combatants" for alleged war crimes in the War on Terror authorized by the Congress or the inherent powers of the President? (2) May the rights protected by the Geneva Convention be enforced in federal court through habeas corpus petitions?'
Rule:
1. the military commission established to try those deemed “enemy combatants” for alleged war crimes in the GWOT was not authorized by congress or the inherent powers of the president
2. the rights protected by the Geneva convention may be enforced in federal court through habeas corpus petitions.
Analysis:
Many U.S. and international human rights organizations have determined that violations might occur through the non-application of the Geneva Convention to detainees in the U.S. war on terrorism.
Outcome:
(1) No. The military commission established to try those deemed "enemy combatants" for alleged war crimes in the War on Terror was not authorized by the Congress or the inherent powers of the President. Neither an act of Congress nor the inherent powers of the Executive Branch laid out in the Constitution expressly authorized the sort of military commission at issue in this case. Absent that express authorization, the commission had to comply with the ordinary laws of the United States (D) and the laws of war.
(2) Yes. The rights protected by the Geneva Convention may be enforced in federal court through habeas corpus petitions. The Geneva Convention, as a part of the ordinary laws of war, could be enforced by the U.S. Supreme Court, along with the statutory Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), since the military commission was not authorized. Hamdan's (P) exclusion from certain parts of his trial deemed classified by the military commission violated both of these, and the trial was therefore illegal. Article 3, or «common Article 3" as it is sometimes known, does apply to Hamdan (P), despite a holding to the contrary by the court of appeals, and arguments to the contrary by the government. Common Article 3 provides minimal protection to individuals associated with neither a signatory nor a non-signatory "Power" who are involved in a conflict in the territory of a signatory. Common Article 3 is applicable here and requires that Hamdan (P) be tried by a "regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."
No comments:
Post a Comment