Hamdi Vs Rumsfeld Case Study

One defining case in this history of torture laws is that of Hamdi V. Rumsfeld (2002) and Hamdan V. Rumsfeld (2006). Both of these cases involved former detained individuals at Guantanamo Bay, one of the aforementioned secret prisons. In Hamdi V. Rumsfeld, the legality of indefinite detention and suspension of Habeas Corpus for “enemy combatants” was questioned. The only decision that SCOTUS was able to rest on was the Executive Branch does not have the power to hold a U.S. citizen indefinitely without basic due process protections enforceable through judicial review, which effectively extended the rights of Habeas Corpus. With this right in place, Salim Hamdan brought Attorney General Rumsfeld again to the Supreme Court, to put the constitutionality of Guantanamo Bay to the test of Judicial Review once again. The following decisions were made; “Military commissions are legitimate forums to try enemy combatants because they have been approved by Congress.
The Geneva Convention is a treaty between nations and as such it does not confer individual rights and remedies.
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. Under the terms of the Geneva Convention, al Qaeda and its members are not covered.” However, alongside this, the court ruled regarding Guantanamo Bay that “The military commission at issue lacks the power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949.” To put these rulings regarding treatment of prisoners and the lengths to which the Geneva Conventions dictate this, the example can be used of Brian and the Suspected Al Qaeda Terrorist. If Brian works for U.S. law enforcement, and has a suspect of string of robberies in custody, that suspect has certain rights that limit the things Brian can do to
him. The 5th amendment of the Constitution outlines some of these limitations as a right to due process of law, which guaruntees “a fundamentally fair, orderly, and just judicial proceeding” involving trial by jury of an individual’s peers, reading of Miranda Rights, and most importantly, according to Article One, Section 9 of the Constitution “habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. " Habeas Corpus meaning that “ it is required a person under arrest must be brought before a judge or into court, especially to secure the person's release unless lawful grounds are shown for their detention.” The 8th amendment also limits the Federal government from engaging in “imposing cruel and unusual punishment for federal crimes.” So, according to many separate clauses of the Constitution, if Brian arrests a suspect of a string of bank robberies, he cannot detain him indefinitely, must inform him of his rights and charge the individual with a crime, as well as have a timely and just trail by which to determine if the individual is guilty, under which circumstances he may be further detained. Brian arrests Cecilia, a U.S. citizen with reasonable suspicion that she has been involved in this crime ring bank robbery gang, and he has to tell her that she is being charged with theft. In addition, Brian cannot legally injure or humiliate Cecilia in any way in order to gain information regarding the other bank robberies. However, if Brian is working for the CIA in Afghanistan or Iraq, and he suspects an individual of being involved with bombings orchestrated by Al-Qaeda, it is legal for Brian to bring the individual to the Salt Pit prison and hold that individual indefinitely without charging them for a crime. It is also legal for Brian to force that individual to kneel for days in order to obtain information regarding the aforementioned crime, as according to Hamdan V. Rumsfeld, Geneva Convention limitations, intended to fill in where domestic law cannot, do not apply to Al-Qaeda operatives. However, as the writ of Habeas Corpus is also suspended and does not apply within Afghanistan, there is also no mandate for Brian to determine if said individual is in fact an Al-Qaeda operative before subjecting him to treatment that violates the Geneva Convention.