Government officials argued his confinement was necessary to obtain all possible intelligence during wartime, including information about the enemy to help prevent possible attacks. Dunham maintained that Hamdi was "a civilian unaffiliated with any military force" who tried unsuccessfully to leave Afghanistan within days of the September 11 attacks and that he "never engaged in, nor did he intend to engage in, an armed conflict against the United States in Afghanistan or anywhere else.
In the Wednesday interview, Hamdi gave no details of what he was doing in Afghanistan at the time of his capture. The Supreme Court affirmed the right of the president to detain citizens as "enemy combatants" during a military conflict but held that such prisoners could challenge the merits of their captivity before a neutral fact-finder.
The majority opinion said war was not "a blank check" for the executive branch and that "an unchecked system of detention carries the potential to become a means for oppression and abuse of others who do not present that sort of threat.
The agreement to release Hamdi, negotiated over the last four months, precluded any such hearing. Hamdi was supposed to be released by September 30, but the departure was delayed while U. Attorneys for two other enemy combatants -- so-called "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla and Qatari national Ali Saleh al-Marri -- are currently challenging their detentions in a South Carolina federal court. Both are being held in the Charleston brig. He would not give specifics on his treatment during his time in U.
Hamdi did allude to solitary confinement when he said prayer helped him during long days alone. Hamdi voices innocence, joy about reunion Man held as 'enemy combatant' now back in Saudi Arabia Hamdi said his new freedom "feels great. Former U. Search Search. Home United States U. Africa 54 - November 11, VOA Africa Listen live. VOA Newscasts Latest program. Court Docket s E. ECF 13] F. Contact Report an Error Privacy Policy. University of Michigan Law School. Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.
Case Profile. Constitutional Clause. Habeas Corpus, 28 U. Hamdi v. Opinion [Ct. ECF 21] F. Order [ECF 43] F. Opinion F. Order F. All agree that, absent suspension, the writ of habeas corpus remains available to every individual detained within the United States. Only in the rarest of circumstances has Congress seen fit to suspend the writ. At all other times, it has remained a critical check on the Executive, ensuring that it does not detain individuals except in accordance with law.
See INS v. Cyr, U. All agree suspension of the writ has not occurred here. The Government recognizes the basic procedural protections required by the habeas statute, Id. It suggests two separate reasons for its position that no further process is due. This argument is easily rejected. Hamdi resided in Afghanistan. This is the argument that further factual exploration is unwarranted and inappropriate in light of the extraordinary constitutional interests at stake.
Correctional Institution at Walpole v. Hill, U. Brief for Respondents 36; see also F. Davis, U. Texas, U. The District Court, agreeing with Hamdi, apparently believed that the appropriate process would approach the process that accompanies a criminal trial. It therefore disapproved of the hearsay nature of the Mobbs Declaration and anticipated quite extensive discovery of various military affairs.
Both of these positions highlight legitimate 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 contends he is due before he is deprived of a constitutional right. Eldridge, U. Doe, U. Burch, U. Salerno, U. Martin, U. Texas, supra , at We take each of these steps in turn.
It is beyond question that substantial interests lie on both sides of the scale in this case. Foucha v. Louisiana, U. United States, U. Carey v. Piphus, U. See Brief for AmeriCares et al. See Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. Donaldson, U. Eldridge analysis is unaltered by the allegations surrounding the particular detainee or the organizations with which he is alleged to have associated.
On the other side of the scale are the weighty and sensitive governmental interests in ensuring that those who have in fact fought with the enemy during a war do not return to battle against the United States. As discussed above, supra , at 10, the law of war and the realities of combat may render such detentions both necessary and appropriate, and our due process analysis need not blink at those realities. Without doubt, our Constitution recognizes that core strategic matters of warmaking belong in the hands of those who are best positioned and most politically accountable for making them.
Department of Navy v. Egan, U. Sawyer, U.
0コメント