Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading…
Transcript

June 28, 2004

Introduction

History

Who Decides

District Court

• Mobbs Declaration - filed on July 24, 2002 by Michael H. Mobbs (Special Advisor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy)

• Mobbs was substantially involved with matters related to the detention of enemy combatants in the war against the al Qaeda terrorists.

• Stated he had knowledge that Hamdi traveled to Afghanistan, summer of 2001 for weapons training, & fought against the US.

•Late 2001, his unit surrendered, and he was moved to a prison under control of the Northern Alliance Forces, where he was detained, then moved to Guantanamo Bay

•Court decided the Mobbs Declaration was not enough to keep Hamdi detained & needed more factual information.

United States Court of Appeals

Fourth Circuit

• Mentioned precedent of Ex Parte Quiren

• Concluded that people who fight against the United States, even if they are citizens, can be designated as an enemy combatant, and can thus be treated as such.

• Agreed Hamdi was allowed to be detained

•No trial required because he was captured in a war zone.

•Believed the Mobbs Declaration was enough to support Hamdi’s detainment, and they ordered to dismiss Habeas Corpus.

Supreme Court

• Father, Saudi National, appealed his case to court.

• Several additional cases mentioned throughout including Ex Parte Quiren and Ex Parte Milligan.

• Ex Parte Milligan

• declared the case did not affect the government’s ability to take hold of enemy combatants.

• Milligan was not a prisoner of war, if he was it would have been a different situation, and he could have been detained for the entirety of the situation. However, he was only a citizen of India, who was arrested while being there.

• Mathew v. Eldridge

• Which asserted the right to due process,

• Hamdi was absent of

The Supreme Court

Majority Opinion

  • The Executive argued that a criminal trial would be impractical, especially to military officers.
  • The Court reasoned that the reliability of the Executive's evidence would taken into consideration, although Hamdi still deserved an opportunity to rebut any factual claims used to validate his detainment (pursuant to the right to due process).
  • The Court also established that it maintains a check on the Executive's power whenever matters of lawfulness are brought into question.

Minority Dissenting Opinion: Justice Thomas

Minority Dissenting Opinion: Scalia

Minority Dissenting/Concurring Opinion: Justice Souter

Ramifications

Conclusion

Oyez

The New World Times

Special Edition: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

  • Hamdi was detained after being captured in 2001.
  • Supreme Court had the responsibility of establishing the rights of citizen-detainees.

• Since the aftermath of 9/11 this case was truly worried many

• Affected each person differently

• Some believed he should continue to be detained

• Others believed he should be released

• The majority, eight judges, believed Hamdi was not given the rights of due process and in the end declared him an enemy combatant.

• Unlike the minority, four judges, who felt that Hamdi should be immediately released, but were restricted by Congress (ACLU of Massachusetts).

• Judge O’Connor delivered the majority opinion

• Judges Scalia and Judge Thomas delivered dissenting opinions

• Judge Souter delivered a partial dissenting opinion

  • Authorization for Use of Military - Authorizes the President to use "all necessary and and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups.
  • As a citizen, Hamdi argued for his constitutionally granted right to due process.
  • Hamdi was allowed a trial "before a neutral decision maker" to challenge his enemy-combatant status.
  • The case examined the separation of powers principle to establish whether or not the judiciary can be involved with defense affairs.
  • The legality of the Executive's detainment of Hamdi, pursuant to the AUMF, was also established.
  • The AUMF provided necessary "congressional authorization" for Hamdi's detainment.

  • Ex Parte Quirin was acknowledged as a precedent case, although it did not influence the majority opinion. It offered that citizenship should not interfere with the conduction of a criminal trial
  • Hamdi was released, however had to agree upon release not to travel outside of Saudi Arabia for five years, and that he was no longer a US citizen.
  • Since Hamdi’s case, many other prisoners have been released from Guantanamo Bay and have been transferred to other countries.
  • While the Executive argued that the Mobbs declaration provided sufficient evidence to detain Hamdi, the Court reasoned that Hamdi should be allowed an opportunity to challenge the factual assertions made by the Executive during habeas corpus proceedings.
  • Hamdi was released, however had to agree upon releasement not to travel outside of Saudi Arabia for five years, and that he was no longer a US citizen.
  • Since Hamdi’s case, many other prisoners have been released from Guantanamo Bay and have been transferred to other countries.
  • Some people agree with this case and think it had a positive outcome, with the government obeying a citizen's rights and such but some think it had a negative outcome and saw it as freeing a terrorist.
  • This case caused great distress with Hamdi being captured shortly after 9/11.

• Event occurred during Bush Administration

• Born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on September 26, 1980.

• Father -petroleum engineer who moved to US

• Moved to Saudi Arabia

• Moved to Afghanistan, received weapons training.

• In Dec. 2001, Hamdi, in possession of a rifle, was captured on the Afghanistan Battlefield, by the Northern Alliance (United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan)

•Turned over to US

•Claimed an “enemy combatant” for fighting with the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces

• Enemy combatant - designated as a used al Qaeda or the Taliban in containment by the United States Government as a way to stop the war on terror.

• Detained in:

• Guantanamo Bay, Cuba - nine years,

• Realized he was a US Citizen then moved to a naval brig in Norfolk, Virginia

•Transferred to a naval brig in South Carolina

•Father- filed for habeas corpus, which is a legal procedure that does not allow you to hold a person for a long period of time without proper cause

•Claimed him violated his 1st and 14th amendment rights.

  • Some praised the decision because it upheld the importance of constitutional rights, while others awarded attention to the war and Bush's dampened executive authority.
  • argues that the AUMF does not provide express congressional approval of Hamdi’s detainment
  • Non-Detention Act - emphasizes importance of congressional authorization
  • Executive must be checked by other branches of government to ensure lawful detainments
  • concurs with the majority in that he agrees that Hamdi should be allowed to challenge his enemy-combatant classification
  • argues for Hamdi's release
  • argued in favor of the AUMF, offering that the President is appropriately allowed to exercise the authority to detain enemy combatants in order to safeguard the nation in times of war
  • argues that the judiciary is too inexperienced to define an individual’s enemy-combatant status
  • argues that the Executive detainment of Hamdi is constitutional and that the right of due process should not be granted
  • believes that the Executive provided sufficient evidence to detain Hamdi while reinforcing the constitutionality of the Executive's actions

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_6696

  • argues that Hamdi should be subject to the criminal process
  • mentions that traitorous citizens were "punished under the criminal process" in Ex Parte Quirin
  • argues in favor of either charging Hamdi with a crime or suspending the right to file a habeas corpus petition
  • mentions that the AUMF is too vague to authorize Hamdi’s detainment and that he should either be detained (while awaiting prosecution) or released
Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi