Understanding Terrorism Cases
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld 2004 - Current Cases
Yaser Esam Hamdi was born an American citizen in 1980 in Louisiana. He later moved with his family to Saudi Arabia and by August 2001 was living in Afghanistan. He was captured by members of the Northern Alliance (a group opposed to the then-ruling Taliban government). After American and Alliance military action began in Afghanistan following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, the Northern Alliance handed him over to American military forces. Hamdi claimed that he was simply an aid worker who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The American government, relying on information from a Defense Department official named Michael Mobb (the Mobb Declaration), accused Hamdi of having links to the Taliban. Hamdi was declared an enemy combatant and sent to a detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Upon learning that Hamdi was an American citizen, the military moved him to a brig (military prison) in Norfolk, Virginia, but it did not give him the opportunity to challenge his confinement.
Hamdi then filed a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, claiming that, as a U.S. citizen, he must be given the opportunity to present his side of the case and to challenge the legality of his confinement. The government countered that the joint resolution of Congress entitled Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) gives the President the authority to detain combatants under certain circumstances. Furthermore, the government argued that the circumstances surrounding Hamdi's arrest were indisputable, that is, he was captured in an active combat zone and, thus, subjected to the provisions of the AUMF.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled in Hamdi's favor, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed (ruled against Hamdi), and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear his case. In a plurality opinion authored by Justice O'Connor, the Court held that, the congressional authorization to detain enemy combatants notwithstanding, authorization notwithstanding, the due process clause of the Constitution (Amendment V) demands that an American citizen be given the opportunity to challenge the reasons for his/her confinement in federal court.
Facts
Hamdi was an American-born citizen who left the United States in his youth. At the outbreak of the war in Afghanistan, he was captured by members of the Northern Alliance for aiding the Taliban and handed over to U.S. military forces. Hamdi was labeled an enemy combatant and detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but was later moved to a military brig in Norfolk, Virginia. He filed for a writ of habeas corpus claiming that, as a U.S. citizen, he was entitled to challenge the legality of his confinement.
Issue
May a U.S. citizen detained as an enemy combatant have recourse to the federal courts to challenge the legality of his/her confinement?
Ruling (6-3)
Yes.
Reasoning
Justice O'Connor, writing for the plurality, stated that the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment requires that U.S. citizens be given the opportunity to challenge the legality of their confinement through habeas corpus proceedings. Justices Kennedy and Breyer and Chief Justice Rehnquist joined this opinion. Justice Souter wrote an opinion concurring in part, dissenting in part, but ultimately agreeing with the judgment. Justice Ginsburg joined this opinion. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion that Justice Stevens joined. Justice Thomas filed a separate dissent.
General Discussion Starters
1. In his dissent, Justice Scalia argued that if Hamdi were assisting the Taliban against the United States, the proper procedure would be not to detain him as an enemy combatant but to try him for treason in a federal court. What are your feelings on this course of action?
2. Are there any situations in which it might be permissible, or even necessary, to hold a U.S. citizen in custody without recourse to the judicial system? If so, what are some examples of these situations?
3. In his dissent, Justice Scalia stated that if there is a need to hold U.S. citizens in custody without recourse to the judicial system, the proper procedure is for Congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus as provided for in Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution. Recognizing the importance of the Great Writ in the protection of individual rights and liberties, do you feel that the facts of this case justify this action? What facts would justify it? Why or why not?
4. If Hamdi, an American citizen, was tried before a military, as opposed to a civilian, court for assisting the Taliban and convicted, should the federal courts be allowed to review his conviction via means of a writ of habeas corpus? Why or why not? |
