Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Term Paper:
PADILLA V. RUMSFELD & HAMDI V. RUMSFELD
Summary of Padilla v. Rumsfeld
Facts of Padilla v. Rumsfeld
Summary of Facts
Supreme Court Reasoning
Lower Court Reasoning
Summary of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
History of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
Reasoning for the Supreme Court
Individuals' Civil rights of Hamdi and Padilla
Contrast and Comparison
Padilla v. Rumsfeld & Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
Summary of Padilla v. Rumsfeld
One of the first and interesting things about the case is to know that the Respondent, Jose Padilla, is a citizen from the United States citizen who made up his mind to become an "enemy fighter." This decision was helped made by the famous President George W. Bush and was held in military custody in South Carolina by the Department of Defense. Also, President George W. Bush discovered that Padilla was working alongside with the terrorist named al Qaeda. Both of these men were working to carry out terrorist attacks in the United States. Initially, Padilla was brought into custody by federal authorities and then he was transported all the way to New York, but was for a moment actually held at the Naval Brig in Charleston, South Carolina after being moved to the protection of the Department of Defense.
When he got there, Padilla went ahead and filed a habeas corpus. This habeas corpus was an appeal in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) identifying President George W. Bush, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and Melanie A. Marr, Commander of the Consolidated Naval Brig, as defendants. Also, the Supreme Court went ahead and spoke about their concerns in regards to two questions: (a) who the right respondent was, and (b) whether the Southern District of New York had authority over that defendant. Then the court went ahead and gave the confirmation in regards to rule that whenever a habeas petitioner pursues to challenge his current physical protection inside the United States, he must name his keeper as defendant and file the petition in the region of imprisonment.
Facts of Padilla v. Rumsfeld
When it comes to the facts about the case, one of the things that need to be looked at is the fact that Padilla was brought into custody on May 8, 2002 by federal powers that be after he walked off of his aircraft from Pakistan all the way to Chicago. Also, the government at first seized him pursuant to a material witness warrant which was given out by the United States District Court for the SDNY in link with a grand jury search into the September 11 terrorist attack. Padilla, two weeks after his arrest, moved to evacuate the material witness warranty.
Previous to the resolve of Padilla's material witness warrant-associated motion, President George W. Bush was the one that designated Padilla as an "enemy fighter" and prearranged Secretary Rumsfeld to keep Padilla in armed protection. President George W. Bush at the time made the accusation that he had the power to order such action founded upon his Commander in Chief authorities and the Approval for the Use of Military Force (LINK) passed by Legislative body which took place on September 18, 2001.
Padilla's advisor put together a habeas corpus appeal in the Southern District of New York on June 11, 2002 claiming that his imprisonment dishonored the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Alterations and the Suspension Clause of the federal Establishment. Also, the habeas corpus request selected as respondents Secretary Rumsfeld, President Bush, and Melanie Marr, the Commander-in-chief of the Combined Marine Brig where Padilla was being imprisoned.
Jose Padilla is a United States citizen. He is a former gang member who was arrested in Chicago upon arrival from Pakistan on May 8, 2002. The FBI claimed that Padilla, while in Pakistan, met with members of Al-Qaeda and was coming back to the U.S. To commit acts of violence. He was therefore held as a material witness for the 9/11 grand jury in New York. President Bush later declared Padilla an "enemy combatant" and transferred him to a military base in South Carolina. Classification as an "enemy combatant" allows the government to detain him without the constitutional protections which are generally extended to criminal defendants.
Summary of Facts
The federal court ruled against Padilla, in New York, ruling that he had been suitably detained and could be labeled as an enemy soldier. They did, on the other hand, order that he be allowed access to an attorney. The United States had the case appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Petitions. The government contended that:
1. Padilla should not be able to have admission to an attorney for the reason that he was a national security worry. They quoted the congressional approval for the war on terrorism, which allowed the President "essential and correct" powers.
2. The New York national or federal court didn't have the power to hear the case for the reason that Padilla had been moved to South Carolina and since the South Carolina penitentiary warden should have been entitled as the defendant instead of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
The Second Circuit administrated alongside both of the government's opinions. They discovered that the New York court of law did have the power to hear the case and that Rumsfeld could be entitled as the defendant. Also they ruled that Padilla could not be held as an enemy participant, and as a result be worthy to have a lawyer. The United States appealed that decision to the Supreme Court
The research also makes the point that the government moved to get rid of Padilla's habeas corpus plea, debating that the only proper defendant was Leader Marr for the reason that she was Padilla's instantaneous custodian and that the District Court did not have the proper authority over Commander Marr since she was positioned outside SDNY. Research on the case shows that the District Court held that Secretary Rumsfeld's private participation in military guardianship rendered him an appropriate respondent, and that it could proclaim authority over the Secretary under New York's long-arm area decree. Another interesting fact to note was that on the assets, the court acknowledged the Government's argument that the President George W. Bush is able to keep back, as enemy opponents, United States inhabitants apprehended on American soil all through a time of war.
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit approved that Secretary Rumsfeld was considered to be a good party and that territory was lawful pursuant when it came down to New York's long-arm decree. On the other hand, on the virtues, the Second Circuit differed with the district court, make the point that President George W. Bush lacks power to keep back Padilla militarily. Also, the Second Circuit approved Padilla the court order of habeas corpus and commanded Secretary Rumsfeld to discharge Padilla from armed care within 30 days. Further information has revealed that the Supreme Court settled with the Government's request for certiorari to do something in regards to looking over the Court of Appeals' decisions on both the merits issues and the jurisdictional.
When it came down to first addressing who the proper respondent to Padilla's habeas corpus petition was, the Supreme Court was right there to make sure that happened. Also, the Court was really feeling like the first issue showed a forthright question. Further information, showed that the federal habeas statute, 28 U.S.C. 2242, gives out that the right respondent is "the individual who has charge over [the requester]." Previous judgments had regulated that this language required the appropriate respondent was the individual with instant keeping of the prisoner and with the authority to create the body of such party before the judge or court. Founded upon the legal language and precedents understanding it, the Court detained that in habeas challenges to physical confinement the proper respondent is the supervisor of the facility where the convict is being held, not some isolated supervisory authorized person (Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 2005). Further information shows that this rule, the Court mentioned, was likewise made official by practice that was longstanding. And, the Court discovered, Padilla's custody did not provide a debatable foundation to proceed from the instant custodian statute. For itself, the Court detained that Leader Marr, not Secretary Rumsfeld, was Padilla's guardian and the appropriate defendant to the habeas request.
Second, the Court spoke to the issue of whether or not the District from the South had any type of authority over Leader Marr. The habeas decree merely allows district courts to fund relief "inside their particular dominions." 28 U.S.C. 2241(a). More research explains that the traditional rule was that the writ of habeas corpus would basically be given out in the region of imprisonment and not in any area in which the respondent is accessible to service, as would be the case if a state's long-arm decree were utilized (Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 2005). Per se, the Law court held that the Southern District of New York did not have jurisdiction over the respondent,…[continue]
"Violation Of Human Rights" (2014, May 25) Retrieved December 8, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/violation-of-human-rights-189425
"Violation Of Human Rights" 25 May 2014. Web.8 December. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/violation-of-human-rights-189425>
"Violation Of Human Rights", 25 May 2014, Accessed.8 December. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/violation-of-human-rights-189425
It shows that Bush did not ensure the carrying out of exactly accurate procedures detailed in the 'Help America Vote Act of 2002', and this had the inevitable result of the lack of appropriate funds for the purpose of election reform until it was a mite too late. The Act that ensures the equality of education for all the children of the United States of America was also not implemented
Human Rights and Child Prostitution in Haiti The Republic of Haiti is a Caribbean country occupying smaller portion of Hispaniola Island. It shares the island with Dominican which is equally another Caribbean country with population of just over 600, 000. In 2011, the population of the Republic of Haiti hit 9 million-mark with chances of a tremendous growth projected in the subsequent years. With the capital located at Port-au-Prince, the country's
When the human rights related to HIV / AIDS are not respected, the vulnerability of the infection and spread of HIV increases and effective response to the epidemic is impeded. It is important to integrate a human rights approach when dealing with HIV / AIDS because once there rights are protected and promoted, vulnerability reduces, response to the epidemic is enhanced, and discrimination against infected individuals is discouraged. References Boesten, J.
As it pertains to sweatshops, indications that the company was operating sweatshops came first in 1998. During this time sweatshops were found in Asia and the company was only paying workers 80 cents per day. Nike's behavior in both these instances created a backlash that is still present. Prior to the findings of human rights violations, Nike had a good reputation as an employer. However, after the presence of human
In other words, the power and the wealth could easily fall in the hand of the few privileged ones, and their rights would be better served, than those of the marginalized, powerless and poor population (Paribatra, 1999). 6. Conclusions and Recommendations The section on the analysis of the issues at hand commenced stating that the purpose of the briefing paper was a simple one: identifying the positive or negative nature of
It is also unlikely that the UN will ever really have an aggressive standing army but will continue to be required to call upon others to be its arms in any given place. "Is it not true that the nation state and state sovereignty will be with us for some time? But in what form?" (Forsythe, 2006, 26) State sovereignty will be a universal application for many years to
Shell Oil in Nigeria Discussions on economic hardship, environmental devastation, and political corruption in Nigeria always seem to come back to the Dutch Shell Oil Company. The company is charged by activists and Wiwa as influencing the Nigerian government to act illegally and, if we believe the allegations, monstrously in violation of human rights in order to exploit the oil resources in the Niger River Delta area (Livesey 58; Saro-Wiwa 7).