Constitutional rights and enemy combatant detention cases

Padilla v. Rumsfeld, Ex-Parte Quirin, and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Facts

Padilla vs. Rumsfeld

The synopsis of this case indicates a fact that Padilla, in the first place, did not have any reason to access a lawyer because he had been deemed a national security concern. Being an enemy combatant, Padilla did not have any jurisdiction whatsoever to be founded on the terms of an appeal as done to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (McPhee, 2006). As seen from the arguments promoted by Bush's depiction of Padilla as an enemy combatant, the court had not authority to hear the case since Padilla was supposed to be kept in the South Carolina. In the meantime, the right and possible defendant should have been a South Carolina Warden and not the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (Hafetz, 2011).

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

The government might be thought to have violated Hamdi's Fifth Amendment right when he was held indefinitely without being granted a chance to face the attorney. This was based particularly on the Executive Branch exemplification that Hamdi was an enemy combatant. He was deemed to have been an enemy combatant because he fought against the United States of America. With the presence of the plurality, it was hard for the accused to be given the right to argue his case through a decision maker. Perhaps, Hamdi had the right to challenge the court ruling that had deemed him as an enemy combatant. This issue was controversial from the start. It was clear that after being detained Hamdi, should have been given his right to access and argue his case through an attorney (Hafetz, 2011).

Quirin does not any justices and justification for the treatment of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The presumptions made by the court towards the ruling will destroy any further effort to protect the rights of the inmates who might be detained unlawfully (Lokaneeta, 2011). There will be aspects of skepticism based on the reason that the government officials, who will be striving to protect the interests and security of the state, will commit abuse of the rights of the detained. The argument will create some havoc in the Quirin argument. Quirin does not offer detainee access to their paths of justice through accessing the attorney and the courts. It does not give the detainees at Guantanamo Bay the right to follow the proper procedures for trying to access their rights in the land as expressed in Padilla case (Hafetz, 2011).

Additional rights given to detainees in the Hamdi case

In the Hamdi case, there is a chance for the detainees to access the courts and challenge their detention before a judge or any other decision maker that might be deemed neutral.