Please use this blog to discuss the case.........sort out the facts.........what are the issues.........what questions do you have? What do you think they meant when they said........?
We want to use this to bring the whole group along so we can carry on a conversation about the case during Constitution Day.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Hamdi is an American Citizen;
Government classified him as an “enemy combatant” for fighting with the Taliban during a conflict;
Captured in Afghanistan;
Father filed habeas petition alleging 4th and 5th amendment violations – I am quoting from Wikipedia – “habeas corpus (Latin) is the name of a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from unlawful detention of themselves or another person. “The right to petition is the freedom of individuals (and sometimes groups and corporations) to petition their government for a correction or repair of some form of injustice without fear of punishment for the same”);
His father says that he supposedly went to Afganistan to do some relief work two months before 9/11 and there was no way he could have been trained for the military;
In the government’s response to the Petition they attached a declaration from Moby Mobbs – http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sleeper/tools/mobbshamdi.html some guy from the Defense Department alleging specifics regarding Hamdi’s trip;
District court found the Declaration was not good enough by itself and requested materials for an “in camera review” (see documents?)
4th Circuit reversed because it was undisputed that Hamdi was taken in an active combat zone, they said they did not need a fact finding inquiry or evidence hearing letting Hamdi be heard or to rebut the government;
The habeas petition was dismissed using the Mobbs Declaration as a sufficient basis for the President actions; more to come……..
To Front Rowers........
Angie has carried the weight so far.
Many of these cases have come up in a habeas format.
The Mobbs Declaration was criticized because it was one of those deals where the declarer was reporting on a lot of things about which they had no personal knowledge. They were told by unnamed others..........very difficult to challenge things stated in that way.
What is the court's final decision?
The Supreme court's final decision was to vacate the lower court's decision and the case be remanded. The court felt that Hamdi was still within his right for due process (right to legal counsel, right to have his charges presented to him before a "neutral decisionmaker", right to contest said charges.)
The court stated that Congress's AUMF act allows for detention but once the facts have been established (is this an American citizen, does he fit the definition of "enemy combatant")Hamdi, should have been allowed his due process rights.
The court also ruled that the Mobbs Declaration was not suffienct evidence to withold Hamdi's rights. Hamdi should have been allowed to establish his rebuttal to this statement.
In addition, the court argued against the Government's response that they did not have to investigate any further because it would impede on the time constraits of vital military personnel in wartime. The court stated that during war time, shorted fact finding and hearsay can be used to expidite a case but it would now be the burden for the accused to provide evidence contrary to what's presented, thus making way for justice to be served in a timely manner.
It seems that the United States Supreme Court decided to hear the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld because of a consitutional question.
Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 2 establishes HABEUS CORPUS, or the right of a citizen to appeal unlawful detention.
But the Bush Administration created a bill -- "Authorization for Use of Military Force" -- that contended "illegal enemy combatants" can be detained indefinitely without access to the court system.
In essence, the Executive Branch created a Bill that was unconstitutional when applied to an American citizen. And in the case, it seems that the Executive Branch was going through a great deal of trouble to clarify that Hamdi is "an enemy combatant", and therefore doesn't deserve the same treatment as everyone else.
If you think about it, for the Bush administration to say: "We have the right to revoke habeus corpus", they are really just saying that "We have the right to revoke your citizenship." Or perhaps, more accurately, "We have the right to revoke your humanity."
I think it's unlikely that the framers and writers of the Constitution intended for the Executive Branch to have such direct tyrannical authority over the citizens. In fact, it's much more probable that such tyranny was exactly what they were trying to avoid in seperating the powers of government with dual soverignty of federal and state authorities and by creating three seperate branches of government.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld Article I of the US Constitution, deciding that United States citizens have the right of HABEUS CORPUS even if they are suspected to be "illegal enemy combatants".
But I did a little further research to read the November 13, 2001 Presidential Military Order which essentially clarified that NON-CITIZENS suspected in connection to terrorism are "enemy combatants" and are subject to detaining without the rights of HABEUS CORPUS. The whole direction of the case -- from trial, to appeals, to the Supreme Court -- was that Hamdi in fact is a citizen, and is therefore protected by the Constitution from such Executives Orders.
I have two questions from this:
1. In an event, like Hamdi's, that the Executive makes a mistake and imprisons the wrong guy, how would we know it if he's never allowed to speak to an attorney or have access to the court system? As it turned out in Hamdi's case, the evidence was presumptive and inconclusive.
2. Why does our President have the Authority to go into another country, select citizens of another nation, label them as "enemy combatants", and detain them on American soil? Doesn't that violate the Geneva Convention? That's EXACTLY the tyranny that the framers of our Constitution were trying to prevent in seperating the powers of our government.
The entire "taking prisoners" issue is related to the president's role as commander in chief. Accordingly, that sort of thing happens in war and he derives power from that, I think.
Team,
This is a lengthy article. It took me all weekend to read it in its entirety.
What Angie posted correctly summarizes the facts surrounding the Supreme Court case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. And it's important that we know the details of the trials and appeals prior to class.
But the gist of the Handout was the Supreme Court's final ruling, and here is a synopsis of that:
1. 8 of the 9 Justices agreed that the Executive Branch does not have the right to nullify HABEUS CORPUS:
A. J.O'Conner, J.Breyer, J.Kennedy, and C.J.Rehnquist said that Hamdi does have the right to a trial and is protected by HABEUS CORPUS, but those a "qualified" right. They agreed that Congress allowed for the detention of combatants with AUMF. They said that the Department of Defense, under the Executive, should create special tribunals to investigate these claims for a citizen detained as an "enemy combatant". Given the circumstances of 9/11, the War on Terror, and the declaration of "enemy combatant" status, several judicial rights should not apply to Hamdi, including the Government having the burden of proof against Hamdi or the dismissal of hearsay as evidence.
B. J.Souter and J.Ginsburg agreed that with the upholding of HABEUS CORPUS and with the establishment of tribunals. But their interpretation of AUMF does not grant authority to detain citizens unlawfully.
C. J.Scalia and J.Stevens said that either Congress needs to ammend the constitutional right to HABEUS CORPUS, or a normal criminal trial must be brought about for Hamdi. The AUMF does not, in their opinion, nullify the rights of HABEUS CORPUS.
2. 1 of the 9 Justices of the Supreme Court took sides with the Government.
A. J.Thomas gave full support to Article 2 of the Constitution, granting that the Executive's Commander-in-Cheif status gave him/her very broad war-making powers and the circumstances of the War on Terror granted the President leeway to detain Hamdi.
-------
Personally, I agree with Justice Souter and Justice Ginsburg. They gave a great detail about the establishment of relative precedent laws, particularly regards to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, and they made a clever comment:
"It is instructive to recall Justice Jackson's observation that the President is not Commander-in-Chief of the country, only the military." - (Page 14 of the Opinion of Souter, J.)
Also, here are a few supplementary links you might want to check out:
1. This is a link to the Duke University School of Law's summarization of the case. It helped me a lot to understand the case as a whole before diving into the Justice's opinions:
http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/commentary/hamvrum
2. If you happen to be a fan of NPR, there's some nice audio commentary about the decision which I found insightful:
http//www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3022055
3. And of course, there's always Wikipedia.
Fellow Front Rowers did a great job getting the key points. I'll try to be brief with some opinions: After they realized Hamdi was an American citizen and After allowing him to communicate with an attorney, the Court ruled that Hamdi had a right to counsel or a trial with representation.
I find it strange that he wasn't allowed a criminal trial in the first place. We take pride in going to great lengths to protect our citizens. We are known for a speedy trial and "innocent until proven guilty." Maybe I am simplifying things here. But where is the evidence that he was fighting with the Taliban? Did anyone find what evidence the government used against him?
I believe Hamdi gave up his American citizenship and was asked never again to return to the U.S. All previous charges of an enemy combatant were dropped. He now lives in Saudi Arabia, which interestingly enough, is known to be one of the harshest and unjust judicial systems in the world. Most defendants have no right to counsel. (HRW)
Also, could it be possible that if Hamdi had a criminal trial in the first place, he might have been found guilty as an American?
I note that the Mobbs Declaration is just that, a declaration wherein he states certain statements that he declares to be true. I file Declarations quite often (attorney or client Declarations) wherein it becomes a matter of public record and the person signing the declaration is merely saying that he is telling the truth. I feel the Justices made a correct ruling in that Hamdi should be able to provide evidence against his charges.
Hello team,
Wow! ok..His father filed a Habeas peitin on his behalf. Since he has been detained he in unable to see his family or speak any lawyers. The petition provides no details in regards to the factual evidence explaining why his son was detained. I think the father found documents explaining why he was going to travel. We should have alot more evidence to support what he was doing over there. Has anyone in our military spoken to anyone in that Taliban group the the was in? I really think the US is handling this case the wrong way. You should never judge a book by it's cover.
According to the 5th amendment " Nor shall any person ...be deprived of life ,liberty, or property without a due process of law." Hamdi has been robbed of his liberty. I think that the excutive branch is only seeing what is in front of them. They need to dig deeper before they decide anyoen future.
but hear is something to think about:
Hamdi was captured in Afghans, not the USA, the story about him being captured most of come from Afghans or the people that interrogated him.
Hamdi arrived at Guantanamo in January, and no one noticed his US Citz until April? He was not naturalized into citizenship. He was born a U.S. Citz.Do you think this would of made a diff? See you in class tonight.
Post a Comment