followed from necessity rather than persuasion. The essay explores the question of whether constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties were violated in the ruling. Keywords: US Supreme Court‚ rhetoric‚ Hamdi‚ Rumsfeld‚ terrorism‚ illegal combatant‚ enemy combatant‚ Scalia‚ jeremiad ´ ´ ´ ´ Resume : Le present essai jette un coup d’oeil sur la rhetorique dynamique ˆ ´ du cas Hamdi c. Rumsfeld entendu par la Cour supreme americaine en 2004. ´ ´ ´ ´ ` Les rapports des medias ont suggere que la Cour avait
Premium Terrorism United States Al-Qaeda
Civilian casualties is a military term describing civilian persons killed‚ injured‚ or imprisoned by military action. Civilian casualties can be associated with the outcome of any form of military action regardless of whether civilians were targeted directly or not. This differs from collateral damage which specifically applies to only unintentional effects of military action including unintended casualties. Civilian casualties therefore include victims of atrocities such as the Nanking Massacre
Premium Laws of war
permissible under certain circumstances or never at all. The debate of torture between Krauthammer and Sullivan began three years after the Bush administration defined “torture” in the narrowest terms – the permitted coercive‚ physical abuse of enemy combatants if the military necessity demands it. (317) Krauthammer discusses extreme situations that make the use of torture seem less morally unethical and almost acceptable; however‚ his examples are just hypothetical situations. When I weigh his scenarios
Premium Laws of war Torture Abuse
Civil Liberties‚ Habeas Corpus‚ and the War on Terror Charlotte Ashford University 04//2013 POL 201 Instructor Civil Liberties‚ Habeas Corpus‚ and the War on Terror have all played a role throughout history. Throughout history‚ the motivation of man’s self interest has concluded in the domination of those with little or no power in the absence of the rule of law. The war on terror presents an unpredictable challenge for the United States since terrorists are apprehended
Premium Habeas corpus Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
In the Supreme Court case of 1950‚ Johnson v. Eisentrager‚ the United States Army captured nonresident enemy aliens in China; furthermore‚ they were tried and convicted by a military commission for violating the laws of war executed in China prior to their capture. The Court held that aliens do not have the right to petition U.S. courts for writs of habeas corpus that was granted by the Fifth Amendment. According to the Court: If the Fifth Amendment confers its rights on all the world except Americans
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
on civilians as opposed to combatants. This elicits fear in every person because they are afraid for their personal safety in their day to day lives‚ as opposed to fearing only for our soldiers. To determine who is a terrorist‚ we must ask who they are attacking. Do they mainly target combatants in the field or bases‚ do they try to destroy military equipment and are they open to negotiations? If so‚ we should not label them terrorists for simply being enemy combatants. However‚ if they are deliberately
Premium Terrorism Laws of war
above the alleged terrorists were U.S citizens and with that came the right to habeas corpus. In 2001 Yaser Hamdi‚ an American citizen born in Louisiana‚ was captured by the Afghan Northern Alliance and was turned over to the U.S military as an enemy combatant and detained in connection to ongoing hostilities. After being held and interrogated in Afghanistan for months‚ he was transferred to Guantanamo bay but it was found that he held a U.S citizenship and he was transferred to a prison in
Premium Terrorism United States Federal Bureau of Investigation
act under a national banner. Terrorists should be treated as criminals rather than as combatants. Terrorists as a whole do not operate in conjunction with each other. Though some do act in groups‚ the term terrorist can be applied to several distinct groups that have no affiliation‚ such as gangs and the Mafia‚ whom by definition use terrorist tactics to install fear in order the gain power. To treat them as an enemy is to treat them as an identified individual‚ which they are not. Rather‚ they are
Premium Crime Terrorism Criminal justice
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld Yaser Esam Hamdi‚ an American citizen‚ was captured in Afghanistan shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11th. Hamdi was classified as an “enemy combatant” by the United States. His father filed a petition of Habeas Corpus that his fifth and fourteenth amendments were in violation. Although the petition did not specify on the actual circumstances of Hamdi’s capture and detention‚ the record indicated that Hamdi went to Afghanistan to do “relief work” less than two
Premium United States Constitution Hamdi v. Rumsfeld President of the United States
to decide about the trial. Habeas case can interact with three interconnected and they are judicial jurisdiction‚ ordering their release such as ended the trail if the terror that does not show up for their case‚ and to see if the terrors are enemy combatant of the United States as when terrors attacks the United States. The noncitizen should hold their trial in Guantanamo Bay‚ Cuba were the Habeas corpus plays a role in which gives them the authority to stand trial. When congress tried to interfere
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Habeas corpus United States