Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld was a significant Supreme Court case that addressed the legality of military commissions established by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantánamo Bay. Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who had been captured and classified as an enemy combatant, challenged the legitimacy of his military commission by filing for a writ of habeas corpus. The case centered on whether the executive branch could unilaterally create military commissions without congressional approval and whether such commissions were bound by international law, particularly the Geneva Conventions. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Hamdan, asserting that the commissions were unauthorized and violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions.
The ruling underscored the balance of powers and limited the executive branch's authority during wartime, while also recognizing the potential for future military commissions that comply with established laws. Following the case, Congress enacted the Military Commissions Act, changing how detainees were treated under the law. Hamdan's case not only highlighted issues of detainee rights and humane treatment but also raised critical questions about the scope of presidential powers in the context of national security. Ultimately, Hamdan's charges were dropped, and he was released in 2009 after serving time in detention.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
The Case: US Supreme Court ruling on the legality of military commissions created by the Bush administration
Date: Decided on June 29, 2006
In deference to the international laws of war established by the Geneva Conventions, the Supreme Court found illegal the Bush administration’s military commissions set up to try detainees held at Guantánamo Bay. Though hailed by some as a win for detainees’ rights and a commitment to humane treatment of prisoners of war, the court left open the possibility that military commissions could be legally utilized in future situations.
Before his capture in 2001 and transfer to the US military’s Guantánamo Bay detention center, Salim Ahmed Hamdan was a driver for Osama bin Laden. In 2004, a US military commission attempted to try him for terrorist conspiracies. Questioning the commission’s legitimacy, Hamdan filed for a writ of habeas corpus. The administration of US President George W. Bush had classified him as an enemy combatant and claimed that, because international law did not recognize this classification, the military commission need not abide by international law to try him. Responding to Hamdan, the US District Court for the District of Columbia accepted his petition, asserting that Hamdan’s status as an enemy combatant was invalid because it had been determined solely by the president, who was not himself a “competent tribunal.” In 2005, the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the ruling of the district court and supported trial by military commission. In November, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Hamdan’s case, in which Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was the main defendant.
Supporting Hamdan, the Center for Justice and Accountability (CJA) filed a brief that exposed violations of the Geneva Conventions. While the case was heard, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA), which barred US courts from hearing habeas petitions from Guantánamo detainees. Supporting the defense, Senators Jon Kyl and Lindsey Graham submitted a brief claiming that the DTA prevented the court from hearing Hamdan’s case.
Asserting its jurisdiction, the Supreme Court ruled in the petitioner’s favor. The court charged that the Bush administration was not authorized to create military commissions without prior permission from Congress. They criticized the commission for violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice by withholding evidence from the defendant, including confessions obtained through torture, and restricting appeals to the executive branch. The commission had also violated the Geneva Conventions by failing to ensure trial by a “regularly constituted court.” While the court criticized President Bush for overstepping his wartime powers, it also emphasized the potential legality of future commissions, assuming they comport with military and international law.
Impact
In 2006, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act (MCA), making the DTA retroactive and nullifying Hamdan. However, as Hamdan was classified an enemy combatant and as the MCA only pertained to “unlawful enemy combatants,” all charges were dropped against him in 2007. In December, he was reclassified as unlawful, found guilty of terrorism, and in 2008 was sentenced to sixty-six months imprisonment, most of which he was credited with already having served; he was subsequently transferred to Yemen and released in 2009.
Highlighting the importance of terminology in military law, the Hamdan ruling checked executive power. Although the military commission eventually tried him, the case challenged the extent of presidential powers in war.
Bibliography
Bradley, Curtis A. "Clear Statement Rules and Executive War Powers." Harvard Jour. of Law & Public Policy 33.1 (2010): 139–148. Business Source Complete. Web. 6 Feb. 2015.
Daskal, Jennifer. "Hamdan v. United States." Jour. of International Criminal Justice 11.4 (2013): 875–898. SocINDEX with Full Text. Web. 6 Feb. 2015.
Fletcher, Kimberley. "Detainee Cases: How the Court Has Changed the "Path" Trajectory of the Executive Since Curtiss-Wright." Conference Papers—Law & Society (2010): 1. SocINDEX with Full Text. Web. 6 Feb. 2015.
Hansen, Jonathan M. Guantánamo: An American History. New York: Farrar, 2011. Print.
Schading, Barbara. The Civilian’s Guide to the US Military. Cincinnati: Writer’s Digest, 2007. Print.