Hamdi Vs Rumsfeld Case Study

Nathan McNichols
10/20/14

1. Title and Citation Hamdi v. Rumsfeld 542 U.S. 507 (2004) http://laws.findlaw.com/US/542/507.html

2. Facts of the Case Yaser Esam Hamdi was captured, during the hostilities ensuing the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, in Afghanistan by military forces acting on behalf of the United States. The government of the United States asserted that Hamdi was an “enemy combatant”, and, as such, could be held indefinitely under the provisions of the Authorization of Military Force resolution; which was passed by Congress in the hope of providing the Executive with the “necessary and appropriate force [in dealing with] nations, organizations, or persons [the Executive] determines planned, authorized, committed, or

Legal Issue(s)/ Question(s)
1. Can the government indefinitely detain, refuse legal counsel, and judicial trial to United States’ citizens, under the assertion that they are “enemy combatants”?
2. What is the constitutional process, if any, that is afforded to those citizens who are accused of being an “enemy combatant”, and whom wish to challenge the government’s assertion?
3. Applying the aforementioned questions to the facts of this case, the legal questions become: was Hamdi’s Fifth Amendment right to Due Process violated by the government’s holding him indefinitely, refusing him legal counsel, and judicial trial; and, what, if any, are the legal processes afforded to Hamdi as a citizen seeking to challenge his “enemy combatant status”?
4. Does the separation-of-powers doctrine prohibit the judiciary from addressing the questions that arise from the facts of this

United States’ citizens that have been charged with being an enemy combatant have, traditionally, been formally charged with the federal crime of treason; which are prosecuted in federal court. 2. Congress undermined the writ of habeas corpus by authorizing the Executive to detain United States’ citizens, accused of being enemy combatants. 3. The constitutional allows for Congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, which would have been the proper course of action, rather than authorizing the Executive with the aforementioned authority. 4. The Court overstepped its prescribed authority, in its ruling, by violating the separation-of-powers doctrine in an attempt to achieve the best possible outcome: “the plurality seems to view it as its mission to Make Every thing Come Out Right, rather than merely to decree the consequences…” (pg. 319). 5. The other coordinate branches, aside from the judicial branch, are given the appropriate tools, from the Constitution, to adequately address the issues of this case: “if civil rights are to be curtailed during wartime, it must be done openly and democratically, as the Constitution, requires, rather than by silent erosion through an opinion of this Court…” (pg.