Hamdan, a yemini accused of being Osama Bin Laden’s bodyguard, challenged the legality of the military commissions. President Bush established military commissions (military courts that operate differently than normal courts) to try enemy combatants facing terrorism related charges. ![]() Rumsfeld, the President’s ability to use military tribunals was called into question. This included access to counsel and the ability to review evidence and charges against him. On the second issue, the Court was far more unanimous: Hamdi’s habeas petition could be heard, and he must be afforded due process. Justice Scalia wrote a strong dissent to this part of the decision, arguing that the only way an American citizen could be held as an enemy combatant without charges or a trial was if habeas corpus was officially suspended, which the Authorization for Use of Military Force did not do. Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence where he stated that the President also was justified in detaining Hamdi as an enemy combatant under his Article II powers. The AUMF activated the President’s war powers. The plurality reasoned that Congress’s Authorization for Use of Military Force (created after 9/11 to authorize the military to attack Al-Qaeda related individuals) allowed for Hamdi’s detention as an enemy combatant. In a 5-4 vote, a plurality of the Court held that Hamdi could be held as an enemy combatant. Could the US detain an American captured abroad and try him before a military tribunal? What due process should Hamdi be given? The government argued that since Hamdi was considered an enemy combatant, he was not owed any form of due process or judicial review. His father filed a habeus corpus petition, challenging his detention. He was detained for two years without trial or charges on the basis of his capture and slim evidence. Hamdi, an American citizen, was captured in Afghanistan and held as an enemy combatant. Rumsfeld, decided in 2004, and touched on these issues. Most recently the issues of executive power, military tribunals, and enemy combatants have come to the forefront of discussions about the global war on terrorism. Since Indiana had never been a rebel state and the courts had never ceased to function, Congress could not allow military tribunals against non-enemy combatants. The Court did not dispute the suspension of habeas corpus, but determined that since the defendants were not soldiers and the normal criminal courts were still open, the military tribunals could not be used. The defendants challenged their convictions given by the military tribunals, and the Court overturned the convictions. During this time, President Lincoln had suspended habeas corpus. ![]() The defendants in that case had planned to attack Union prisoner of war camps, but were captured and sentenced to death by a military tribunal in Indiana. This issue first was first addressed in Ex Parte Milligan, a decision issued shortly after the end of the Civil War. One hotly debated topic regarding the Executive’s powers is the detention and prosecution of enemy combatants. Many cases filed during the Vietnam War and other conflicts since have been dismissed this way. The courts are likely to refuse to decide on any cases they deem “political questions” – decisions that would reflect policy choices better suited for Congress, rather than constitutional issues determined by the Court. ![]() In those specific cases, the President had to act quickly to protect the country, and could order military action without prior approval.Ĭhallenges to a president’s use of military force can be difficult to bring before the Court. The Court reasoned that rebellions as well as attacks against the United States both represented unique situations – war was being declared on the United States by either of these actions. The Court determined that the President did not need prior Congressional approval in order to start blockades as a war tactic against the South. Congress only approved of the President’s actions and the war after the blockade had already begun. Many ships were seized – under admiralty law, if a ship was seized during war it could be kept as a “prize”, otherwise the taking of the ships would be considered piracy. Prior to the official declaration of the Civil War, President Lincoln ordered a blockade of the southern states. ![]() This has inevitably created a continuing friction between the two branches, particularly when it comes to declaration of war.The clearest Supreme Court precedent on the matter is the decision in the Prize cases. While the Constitution vests Congress with the ability to declare war, it is the Executive that actually manages and commands the armed forces once war has been declared. Article II Section 2 begins with the Commander in Chief Clause, stating the President is the commander of the nation’s armed forces.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |