Terrorism and the Legal System

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld Hamdan v Rumsfeld Case Name and Citation: The name of the case is Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006). Salim Ahmed Hamdan is a Yemeni national, who was captured in Afghanistan in 2001. He is accused of providing material support to terrorists and was transferred to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In 2002, the Bush Administration declared him to be an enemy combatant. They determined that he would stand trial before a military tribunal. However, several years have passed and he has not been allowed to consult with legal counsel.

The result is that the proceedings are delayed which keeps him confined at the facility indefinitely. Donald Rumsfeld was the Secretary of Defense and is responsible for the administration of the prison. [footnoteRef:2] [2: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006)] Facts: Hamdan was captured by militia forces in Afghanistan and was turned over to the U.S. military in 2001. At the time, was known for working with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. In November 2001, the Bush Administration announced that these individuals would be sent to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

They were declared to be enemy combatants and not subject to the same protections, under the Geneva Convention or the Constitution. Hamdan was one of the first persons to be given this designation and was sent to the facility to await trial.[footnoteRef:3] [3: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006)] Procedural History: Hamdan is asking the court to block these proceedings. This is because he believes that it is in violation of American and international laws. In 2004, he filed a suit in United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

They granted his request for habeas corpus and a stay on the military commissions proceedings. The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. They overturned the decision of the lower court and allowed the military commission to proceed. The plaintiff appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. [footnoteRef:4] [4: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S.

557 (2006)] Issue: The court was asked to answer several questions to include: 1) if the military commissions are legal and can exercise authority over Hamdan? 2) What protections are afforded to defendants and could they challenge their status as an enemy combatant?[footnoteRef:5] [5: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006)] Holding: The court answered these questions by supporting the legality of military commissions and Hamdan's detention / classification as an enemy combatant. However, during the process, he must be allowed access to legal counsel and the ability to see the evidence presented before him.

This means that these proceedings must follow the same standards utilized by Uniform Code of Military Justice for court martials. [footnoteRef:6] [6: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006)] Reasoning: The court decided the case based upon precedent established from the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention. Both state, that defendants must be allowed the opportunity to hear evidence against them and consult with their attorneys in the process. At the same time, they relied upon select areas from Johnson v. Eisentrager. This established the legality of these proceedings.

Yet, it.