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

CASE BRIEF

Who:

  • Yaser Hamdi
  • Donald Rumsfeld
  • Justice O'Connor

What:

  • Whether capture & detainment of Hamdi violated Habeaus Corpus

When:

  • Detained December, 2002
  • Lasting from 2001-2009

Where:

  • Afghanistan
  • Norfolk Naval Brig
  • Guantanamo Bay
  • Military Prison in Virginia

Why:

  • Suspected enemy combatant in alliance with Taliban in Sept. 11, 2001 attack
  • At this difficult time in our Nation’s history, we are called upon to consider the legality of the Government’s detention of a United States citizen on United States soil as an “enemy combatant” and to address the process that is constitutionally owed to one who seeks to challenge his classification as such. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that petitioner’s detention was legally authorized and that he was entitled to no further opportunity to challenge his enemy-combatant label. We now vacate and remand. We hold that although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged here, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decision maker.

"The rules specified for Hamdan's trial are illegal," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority in the June 29 decision, finding that the proposed military commissions comply neither with the U.S. military's Uniform Code of Justice nor the Geneva Conventions' Article III, which guarantees certain rights for the detained during wartime. Stevens wrote that the proposed commissions do not uphold the defendants' right to be present at the proceeding. "The court is saying you have to provide this basic level of fairness," says Deborah Pearlstein, director of Human Rights First's U.S. Law and Security Program. "That is, the defendant has the right to see the evidence against him. Otherwise, how do you defend yourself?"

Environment

  • Bush Administration
  • 9/11 Terrorist Attacks
  • Frenzies
  • Patriotism

Ramifications

  • Uncover weaknesses in rationality of detaining terrorist suspects
  • Question of legality regarding other suspects
  • Tested Bush Administration's powers
  • Deported to Saudi Arabia after 3 years

Current Events

  • Patriot Act
  • Boston Massacre 2013

Terrorist attack against US involving death

Deported and no longer US citizen

Questioned specifics of his detainment

"We believe this man to be a terrorist. We believe his to be a man who has come to kill people."

Authorization:

- Justice O'Connor

HAMDI v RUMSFELD

Majority Ruling:

Allison Collins

&

Lisa Lichtsinn

SOURCES

  • http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/23/politics/23hamdi.html?_r=0
  • http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/
  • http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_6696/
  • http://www.cfr.org/terrorism-and-the-law/judging-guantanamo-court-congress-white-house/p11025
  • http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/people-terrorism-watch-list-can-legally-purchase-guns-america
  • http://web.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/commentary/hamvrum
  • http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/22/boston-marathon-bombing-charges-federal-dzkokhar-tsarnaev/2103519/
  • http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-captured_n_3118187.html
Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi