In the case Hamdan versus Rumsfeld held in 2006, the plaintiff was a terror suspect while the respondent was the United States government. Salim Ahmed Hamdan from Yemen was allegedly Osama bin Ladens driver that fell in the hands of the U.S. military during its operation in Afghanistan (Center for Constitutional Rights, 2013). The soldiers took him to Guantanamo Bay, which serves as a prison for terrorists, and sought to have him tried not by the court of law but by the military commission formed to try terrorists. Hamdan however sued in the district courts to have the move outlawed arguing that it was illegal to have him tried by the commission and the matter ended up in the United States Supreme Court. This essay will focus on the various instances in this case in which the actions of one branch of authority affected those of the others, and on the non-U.S. citizens right to habeas corpus.
The executives actions affected those of the judiciary. For instance, former President George Bush established military commissions to try terror suspects. One year after Hamdans capture and imprisonment in the Guantanamo Bay, the president declared him fit for trial in the military commission for alleged conspiracy to bomb the World Trade Center in the 9/11 attack. However, the decision did not satisfy the court, and thus the latter outlawed the decision arguing that it violated the Geneva Convention and the requirements of the Uniform Code of Military Justice . In this case, the executives move to try the suspect in a military commission influenced the court decision that nullified the move.
The moves by the legislature/Congress, as it appears in the case, affected the court decisions. For instance, in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, the Congress failed to take measures to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing and giving verdicts on issues related to the trial of terrorist suspects in a military commission (Center for Constitutional Rights, 2013). This comission, therefore, gave a platform for the Supreme Court to hear the case and rule in favor of Hamdan. Also, the Congress did not authorize the executive to form military commissions that were different from the court-martial and those that contravened the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and thus the court dwelled on this issue to nullify Hamdans trial in the commission. In this case, the failure by the Congress to disqualify the Supreme Court from handling such cases promoted the decision by the court to nullify Hamdans trial by the military commission.
The actions by the judiciary also influenced actions by the executive and the legislature. After the Supreme Court prohibited the trial of Hamdan in a military commission, the president and the Congress realized that their laws had a loophole and thus they decided to seal the gap through the Military Commission Act of 2006 . The move by the two branches of government appears to have been the motivation for the judiciarys decision to outlaw military commissions.
The Supreme Court has defended aliens right to habeas corpus for a long time. The various laws that had guaranteed habeas corpus had been scrapped in the Reconstruction period but the Supreme Court resumed defending the suspects rights basing on the Geneva Convention and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. However, the presidency and the Congress, mainly in the era of George W. Bush, viciously opposed the status quo and they were successful in the 2006 Military Commissions Act that deprived the aliens of the right to habeas corpus . The matter has generated controversy and continued to receive criticism up to date. In this case, the legislature and the executive on one side appear to conflict with the judiciary over the matter.
The case involved Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a suspected terrorist from Yemen, and the U.S. government, and the conflict was whether it was legal to try Hamdan in a military commission. The three branches of government appeared not to have an agreement on the issue, their respective actions having following responses from the others. Firstly, the executives move to create the military commission appeared illegal, and thus the judiciary faulted the move. Secondly, the failure by the Congress to create watertight terrorist laws facilitated the courts verdict on the case. Lastly, the courts decision to outlaw the use of military commission established to try terror suspects saw the legislature and the executive gang together to establish the Military Act of 2006 to protect their interests. In fact, this act has crushed foreigners right to habeas corpus that the Supreme Court had defended for long. The three arms of government, therefore, appeared divided over the matter
About author
Monica is the author at https://essaysleader.com/essays/brain-development-of-young-children/. She always dreamed of working in this position, working with texts and new information. After all, her credo in life is to develop daily in different fields and be an interesting person. She is fluent in three languages and holds a Masters Degree in Philology and Translator, and is also trying to master new fields in order to be knowledgeable in everything.
