Book Review Undergraduate 620 words

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Civil Liberties in the War on Terror

~4 min read

Abstract

This paper reviews I.A. Niday's 2008 article "The War against Terror as War against the Constitution," which examines the civil rights implications of the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) Supreme Court case. The review focuses on Yaser Esam Hamdi, a dual U.S.-Saudi citizen detained at Guantanamo Bay following his capture in Afghanistan, and the constitutional questions his detention raised — particularly regarding habeas corpus. The paper highlights the Supreme Court's deep internal divisions, the arguably arbitrary resolution reached, and the broader argument that U.S. domestic and foreign policy reflects a troubling double standard in the application of liberty and justice to citizens versus non-citizens.

📝 How to Write This Type of Paper Writing guide — click to expand

▼

What makes this paper effective

The review accurately identifies and conveys the central argument of the source article — that the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld ruling exposed deep tensions between national security policy and constitutional protections.
The paper builds logically from a summary of the article's content to a broader thesis about double standards in U.S. policy, giving the review analytical depth beyond mere description.
The thesis statement is clearly stated and directly tied to the evidence drawn from the article, demonstrating the student's ability to synthesize source material with an original argument.

Key academic technique demonstrated

This paper demonstrates effective critical source analysis. Rather than simply paraphrasing Niday's article, the student identifies its most significant claims — particularly the Supreme Court's fragmented opinions and the arguably arbitrary resolution — and uses them as evidence to support a broader argument about U.S. civil liberties policy. This moves the review from descriptive to analytical writing.

Structure breakdown

The paper opens with a bibliographic reference to the source article, followed by a summary of its principal arguments. It then highlights key findings — especially the Supreme Court's internal divisions — and escalates to the article's most provocative claim: that the case's resolution was arbitrary. The paper concludes with a thesis statement broadening the argument to a systemic double standard in how the U.S. applies its stated values domestically versus internationally.

Introduction and Article Overview

Niday, I.A. (2008). The War against Terror as War against the Constitution. Canadian Review of American Studies, 38(1), 101–117.

I.A. Niday's 2008 article, "The War against Terror as War against the Constitution," addresses a number of essential questions surrounding civil rights and national security in post-9/11 America. The principal focus of the article is to explore whether the civil rights of Yaser Esam Hamdi — a dual United States and Saudi Arabian citizen detained at Guantanamo Bay in 2002 after being captured in Afghanistan during the early stages of the War on Terror — were violated. In pursuing this question, Niday examines the 2004 Supreme Court case Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, in which legal counsel on behalf of Hamdi alleged that his rights as a U.S. citizen had been violated, particularly his right to habeas corpus — that is, his right to a speedy and fair trial.

The Hamdi Case and Habeas Corpus

The case of Yaser Esam Hamdi raises fundamental questions about the scope of executive power and the constitutional protections afforded to U.S. citizens during wartime. Hamdi was classified as an enemy combatant by the U.S. government and held without formal charges or access to legal counsel for an extended period. His legal challenge centered on the constitutional guarantee of habeas corpus, which protects individuals from unlawful detention by requiring the government to justify imprisonment before a court. The lawsuit brought these tensions into sharp relief, forcing the Supreme Court to weigh national security imperatives against the constitutional rights of a citizen held on foreign soil.

Supreme Court Divisions and the Question of Justice

During the course of the article, a number of significant points emerge that cast doubt on whether justice was truly served in a case that ultimately determined the U.S. government has the right to detain enemy combatants indefinitely, while simultaneously ruling that U.S. citizens among those detainees must be granted the opportunity to contest their enemy combatant status. The most striking aspect of Niday's analysis is the intense dissent that characterized the deliberations among the nine Supreme Court justices. The case produced four distinct opinions, with only four justices agreeing on a unified position — a degree of fragmentation that itself raises questions about the coherence and legitimacy of the ruling.

2 Locked Sections · 180 words remaining

The Arbitrary Resolution and Its Implications · 95 words

"Critique of the court's inconclusive resolution"

Double Standards in U.S. Liberty and Justice · 85 words

"Thesis on U.S. double standards in civil liberties"

You’re 58% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.

130,000+ paper examples AI writing assistant Citation generator Cancel anytime

Key Concepts in This Paper

Habeas Corpus Enemy Combatants Guantanamo Bay Due Process Civil Liberties War on Terror Supreme Court Constitutional Rights Judicial Dissent Foreign Policy