Hamdi vs Rumsfeld

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld Yaser Esam Hamdi, an American citizen, was captured in Afghanistan shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11th. Hamdi was classified as an “enemy combatant” by the United States. His father filed a petition of Habeas Corpus that his fifth and fourteenth amendments were in violation. Although the petition did not specify on the actual circumstances of Hamdi’s capture and detention, the record indicated that Hamdi went to Afghanistan to do “relief work” less than two months before September 11th and could have not received military training.
The Special Advisor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Michael Mobbs, issued a response, outlining the Government’s position. The district court found the “Mobbs Declaration” insufficient in supporting the Government’s case. The Mobbs Declaration provided details regarding Hamdi’s trip to Afghanistan, his affiliation with the Taliban during a time when the Taliban was battling U. S. allies, and lastly his surrender of an assault rifle.
The District Court found that the Mobbs Declaration, standing alone, did not support Hamdi’s detention and ordered the Government to turn over numerous materials. The Fourth Circuit reversed, stressing that it was undisputed that Hamdi was captured in an active combat zone, no factual inquiry or evidentiary hearing allowed Hamdi to be heard or to rebut the Government’s claims were necessary or proper. If the Mobbs Declaration was accurate, it provided a sufficient basis upon which to conclude that the President had constitutionally detained Hamdi, the court ordered the habeas petition dismissed.

The appeals court held that, “no citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress”. This provides that The AUMF’s “necessary and appropriate force” language provided the authorization for Hamdi’s detention. Also that Hamdi is entitled only to a limited judicial inquiry into his detention’s rationality under the war powers of the political branches, and not to a searching review of the actual determinations underlying his capture.
The results in the judgment were quitted, and the case is remanded. Justices O’Connor, Kennedy, and Breyer, concluded that although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged in this case, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decision maker.
First, the Government urges the adoption of the Fourth Circuit’s holding that because it is “undisputed” Hamdi’s seizure took place in a combat zone, the habeas determination can be made as matter of law, with no further hearing or fact finding necessary. This argument did not hold, and the circumstances surrounding Hamdi’s seizure cannot in any way be characterized as “undisputed” because Hamdi has not been permitted to speak for himself or even through legal counsel.
The “facts” that constitute the alleged concern are insufficient to support Hamdi’s detention. Under the definition of enemy combatant, Hamdi would need to be “part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners” and “engaged in an armed conflict against the United States” to justify his detention in the United States for the duration of the conflict. The habeas petition states only “when seized by the United States Government, Mr. Hamdi resided in Afghanistan. A claim that one resided in a country in which combat operations are taking place is not a concession that one was “captured in a zone of active combat operations in a foreign theater of war,” does not mean that “part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners” and “engaged in an armed conflict against the United States. ” So the argument that Hamdi has made concessions that eliminate any right to further process is rejected. The Government’s second argument requires that further factual exploration is inappropriate in light of the extraordinary constitutional interests at risk.
Under the Government’s argument, “respect for separation of powers and the limited institutional capabilities of courts in matters of military decision-making in connection with an ongoing conflict” ought to eliminate entirely any individual process, restricting the courts to investigating only whether legal authorization exists for the broader detention scheme. The government argues, courts should review its determination that a citizen is an enemy combatant under a very deferential “some evidence” standard.
A court would assume the accuracy of the Government’s expressed basis for Hamdi’s detention, as said in the Mobbs Declaration, and assess only whether that expressed basis was lawful. Hamdi’s response emphasizes that the court consistently has recognized that an individual challenging his detention may not be held at the will of the Executive without alternative to some proceeding before a neutral hearing to determine whether the Executive’s asserted justifications for that detention have basis in fact.
He argues that the Fourth Circuit wrongfully “ceded power to the Executive during wartime to define the conduct for which a citizen may be detained, judge whether that citizen has engaged in the proscribed conduct, and imprison that citizen indefinitely,” The District Court, agreeing with Hamdi, believed that the appropriate process would approach the process that accompanies a criminal trial. It disapproved of the Mobbs Declaration and anticipated various military affairs.
Both of these positions cause concerns, and both emphasize the tension that often exists between the autonomy that the Government asserts is necessary in order to pursue effectively a particular goal and the process that a citizen argues that he is due before he is deprived of a constitutional right. The process due in any given instance is determined by weighing “the private interest that will be affected by the official action” against the Government’s interest, “including the function involved” and the burdens the Government would face in providing greater process.