Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

HamdanHamdam v. RumsfeldHamdan v. Bush
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949." Specifically, the ruling says that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was violated.wikipedia
200 Related Articles

Guantanamo military commission

Guantanamo military commissionsOffice of Military Commissionsmilitary commissions
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949." In July 2004, Hamdan was charged with conspiracy to commit terrorism, and the Bush administration made arrangements to try him before a military commission, established by the Department of Defense under Military Commission Order No. 1 of March 21, 2002.
On June 29, 2006, the Supreme Court had ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld Docket 05-194, with a 5-3 decision for the detainee Salim Ahmed Hamdan.

Guantanamo Bay detention camp

Guantanamo BayGuantanamo Bay detainment campGuantanamo
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949." An unusual aspect of the case was an amicus brief filed by Senators Jon Kyl and Lindsey Graham, which presented an "extensive colloquy" added to the Congressional record as evidence that "Congress was aware" that the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 would strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear cases brought by the Guantanamo detainees.
Ensuing U.S. Supreme Court decisions since 2004 have determined otherwise and that U.S. courts do have jurisdiction: it ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on 29 June 2006, that detainees were entitled to the minimal protections listed under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

Salim Hamdan

Salim Ahmed Hamdan00149Hamdan, Salim Ahmed
The plaintiff was Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a citizen of Yemen who worked as a bodyguard and chauffeur for Osama bin Laden.
In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), the Court ruled that the military commissions as set up by the United States Department of Defense were flawed and unconstitutional.

Emily Bazelon

Because these statements were not included in the December 21 debate at the time, Emily Bazelon of Slate magazine has argued that their brief was an attempt to mislead the court.
She has written on subjects such as voting rights, the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld Guantanamo detainee due process trial and the alleged post-abortion syndrome.

Charles Swift

Charlie SwiftLieutenant Commander Charles SwiftCharles D. Swift
He was assigned a defense counsel, LCDR Charles D. Swift from the Navy JAG, who with a legal team filed a petition for Hamdan in US District Court for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the constitutionality of the military commission, and saying that it lacked the protections required under the Geneva Conventions and United States Uniform Code of Military Justice. The petition was filed on behalf of Hamdan by Neal Katyal of Georgetown University Law Center and Lt. Commander Charles Swift of the U.S. Navy, an alumnus of Seattle University School of Law.
Swift used the civil courts to challenge the constitutionality of the military tribunals and the legal treatment of detainees in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), a case that went to the US Supreme Court and was decided in his client's favor.

Lindsey Graham

Lindsey O. GrahamSenator Lindsey GrahamGraham
An unusual aspect of the case was an amicus brief filed by Senators Jon Kyl and Lindsey Graham, which presented an "extensive colloquy" added to the Congressional record as evidence that "Congress was aware" that the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 would strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear cases brought by the Guantanamo detainees.
In February 2006, Graham joined Senator Jon Kyl in filing an amicus brief in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case that argued "Congress was aware" that the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 would strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear "pending cases, including this case" brought by the Guantanamo detainees.

John Paul Stevens

Justice StevensStevensJohn P. Stevens
Associate Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion for the Court, which commanded a majority only in part.
Stevens's majority opinions in landmark cases include Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Apprendi v. New Jersey, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Kelo v. City of New London, and Massachusetts v. EPA.

Presidency of George W. Bush

Bush administrationGeorge W. Bush administrationadministration
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949."
Bush's policies suffered a major rebuke from the Supreme Court in the 2006 case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, in which the court rejected Bush's use of military commissions without congressional approval and held that all detainees were protected by the Geneva Conventions.

Military Commission Order No. 1

In July 2004, Hamdan was charged with conspiracy to commit terrorism, and the Bush administration made arrangements to try him before a military commission, established by the Department of Defense under Military Commission Order No. 1 of March 21, 2002.
1' was an order that came into focus in the 2006 ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States in 'Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

Jon Kyl

John KylJonJon Llewellyn Kyl
An unusual aspect of the case was an amicus brief filed by Senators Jon Kyl and Lindsey Graham, which presented an "extensive colloquy" added to the Congressional record as evidence that "Congress was aware" that the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 would strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear cases brought by the Guantanamo detainees.
In February 2006, Kyl joined Senator Lindsey Graham in an amicus brief in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case.

John Roberts

John G. RobertsRobertsChief Justice Roberts
Chief Justice Roberts recused himself because he had previously ruled on this case as part of the three judge panel on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Roberts was part of a unanimous circuit panel overturning the district court ruling and upholding military tribunals set up by the Bush administration for trying terrorism suspects known as enemy combatants.

Enemy combatant

enemy combatantsenemyenemies
It determined that he was eligible for detention by the United States as an enemy combatant or person of interest.
Following the Supreme Court's ruling of lexi Hamdan v. Rumsfeld the United States Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which contained definitions for lawful and unlawful enemy combatants.

Schlesinger v. Councilman

The government's argument that Schlesinger v. Councilman 420 U.S. 738 (1975) precludes Supreme Court review was similarly rejected.
The case was a key part of government arguments in the 2006 case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, defending its contention that the Supreme Court should not have heard the case, because Hamdan was still being processed by a military tribunal court in Guantanamo Bay.

Antonin Scalia

Justice ScaliaScaliaJustice Antonin Scalia
Critics called for Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself, since he had made allegedly improper comments about the decision of the case prior to hearing oral arguments ("I'm not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it's crazy") but he chose not to do so.
The Court held 5–3 in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that the federal courts had jurisdiction to consider Hamdan's claims; Scalia, in dissent, contended that any Court authority to consider Hamdan's petition had been eliminated by the jurisdiction-stripping Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.

Perkins Coie

Perkins Coie LLP
The Seattle law firm Perkins Coie provided the additional legal counsel for Hamdan.
The case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, in which the Court ruled that the Bush Administration's use of military commissions to try terrorism suspects was unconstitutional.

James Robertson (judge)

James RobertsonJudge James Robertson
After reviewing Hamdan's habeas petition, Judge James Robertson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in the detainee's favor.
* Hamdan v. Rumsfeld: Yemeni prisoner Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a chauffeur for Osama bin Laden, was imprisoned by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay detainment camp without charge.

Neal Katyal

Neal K. Katyal
The petition was filed on behalf of Hamdan by Neal Katyal of Georgetown University Law Center and Lt. Commander Charles Swift of the U.S. Navy, an alumnus of Seattle University School of Law.
While teaching at Georgetown University Law Center for two decades, Katyal was lead counsel for the Guantanamo Bay detainees in the Supreme Court case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), which held that Guantanamo military commissions set up by the George W. Bush administration to try detainees "violate both the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions."

Paul Clement

Paul D. Clement
Katyal argued on behalf of Hamdan, and Paul Clement, the Solicitor General of the United States, argued on behalf of the government.
He has argued over 53 cases before the United States Supreme Court, including McConnell v. FEC, Tennessee v. Lane, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, United States v. Booker, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld v. FAIR, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Gonzales v. Raich, Gonzales v. Oregon, Gonzales v. Carhart, Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, and Sekhar v. United States.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

HamdiYaser Hamdi v. Donald Rumsfeld
Following the United States Supreme Court ruling in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), which established that detainees had the right of habeas corpus to challenge their detention, Hamdan was granted a review before the Combatant Status Review Tribunal.

Military Commissions Act of 2006

Military Commissions ActMilitary Commission Act of 2006military commission
Shortly thereafter, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 may have raised again the issue of which court would hear cases such as Hamdan's.
It was drafted following the Supreme Court's decision on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), which ruled that the Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT), as established by the United States Department of Defense, were procedurally flawed and unconstitutional, and did not provide protections under the Geneva Conventions.

A. Raymond Randolph

Arthur Raymond RandolphRaymond Randolph
Judge Randolph also wrote the majority opinion for the D.C. Circuit in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists

Authorization for Use of Military Force2001 lawAUMF
As to the statutory authorization, there is nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) "even hinting" at expanding the President's war powers beyond those enumerated in Art.
The AUMF was unsuccessfully cited by the George W. Bush administration in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the administration's military commissions at Guantanamo Bay were not competent tribunals as constituted and thus illegal.

Signing statement

signing statementsPresidential Signing Statementsby the Bush administration
He also accuses the majority of ignoring the President's Signing Statement.
In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), the Supreme Court gave no weight to a signing statement in interpreting the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, according to that case's dissent (which included Justice Samuel Alito, a proponent of expanded signing statements when he worked in the Reagan Justice Department – see "Presidential usage" below).

NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–2007)

NSA warrantless surveillance controversywarrantless wiretappingNSA warrantless surveillance
In particular, it may undermine the Bush administration's legal arguments for domestic wiretapping by the National Security Agency without warrants as required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
However, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld the Court rejected the government's argument that AUMF implicitly authorized the President to establish military commissions in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Combatant Status Review Tribunal

Combatant Status Review TribunalsCSRT(CSRT)
Following the United States Supreme Court ruling in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), which established that detainees had the right of habeas corpus to challenge their detention, Hamdan was granted a review before the Combatant Status Review Tribunal.
In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), the Court ruled that the system of military commissions as established by the DoD was illegal and needed to be replaced by a system authorized by Congress.