Hamdi et al. v. Rumsfeld

Hamdi et al. v. Rumsfeld Hamdi et al. v. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense etc. It can prove to destroy the legal defense against the abuse of power of the Bush administration in the Gulf of Guantanamo. In this case four British citizens appealed a series of Army and Air Force generals and policy makers who were authorized to use torture in Secretary of Defense Donald Drumsfield and Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. Four were captured by the Northern Alliance of the United States or the United States of America in Afghanistan, transported to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where they were detained for over two years.

Mr. Scalia (also joined by Judge John Paul Stevens) filed an objection in 2004 against Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld against Arthur Hamdi, a US citizen suspected to be an adversary. Combatants were detained by the United States of America. The court approved the Congress to detain Hamdi but the legitimate procedure of the fifth amendment is that citizens detained in the United States have disputed detention in the presence of neutral decision makers as enemy combatants We guaranteed to have a right to file. Scalia stated that the AUMF (the approval of the use of military power by terrorists) can not be interpreted as a halt of Javea Corpus, and the courts facing Congressional legislation did not allow President to detain Hamdi It was. "Come out."

In the case of Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld in June 2004, the Supreme Court ordered Hamdi to provide lawyers to the government, reviewed the evidence against him, and got an opportunity to file an objection. However, Judge Sandra Day O'Connor, who wrote for the court, said the defendant 's rights had to be balanced with the national security interests. Requesting Hamdi's general criminal trial will deprive the government of its ability to maintain national security while depriving him of the right to challenge his classification as an enemy combatant, resulting in insufficient protection I will. Mr. O'Connor is convinced that Hamdi must hear his case through a fairly and appropriately composed court but in the procedural protection of the criminal court such as prohibition of hearing evidence or the burden of proof of the government It is said not to be.