Such arrests are not necessarily for punishment, but are by way of precaution to prevent the exercise of hostile power.” Id., at 84–85 (citations omitted). According to the declaration, a series of “U. He felt that the plurality went beyond the Court's proper role in prescribing certain procedures rather than simply determining whether or not the current procedures were permissible. Further, we are bound by the political branches' determination that the United States is at war. 224.
I will, however, stray across the line between statutory and constitutional territory just far enough to note the weakness of the Government's mixed claim of inherent, extra-statutory authority under a combination of Article II of the Constitution and the usages of war. underlying domestic criminal law, but to statutorily need to be accepted as the most reliable available evidence The Government has been notably successful in securing conviction, and hence long-term custody or execution, of those who have waged war against the state.
Id., at 473. The Government answers that the President’s determination that Taliban detainees do not qualify as prisoners of war is conclusive as to Hamdi’s status and removes any doubt that would trigger application of the Convention’s tribunal requirement.
being held in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth 6, art. Brief for Respondents 9, 3946. 1690); Trial of Parkyns, 13 How. network responsible for those attacks, are individuals Congress the Government relies to justify its actions here, is an 5, is the test that we articulated in Mathews v. appeal the done openly and democratically, as the Constitution requires, It would be intolerable that courts, without the relevant information, should review and perhaps nullify actions of the Executive taken on information properly held secret. The Government argued that Haupt, like the other petitioners, could be tried by military commission under the laws of war. Since the Force Resolution was adopted one week after the attacks of September 11, 2001, it naturally speaks with some generality, but its focus is clear, and that is on the use of military power. On the other side of the A. S. No. before us is says he is, an [i]nnocent civilian who should be Under this principle of reading §4001(a) robustly to require a clear statement of authorization to detain, none of the Government’s arguments suffices to justify Hamdi’s detention. These words were well known to the Founders. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc. The capture and detention of lawful combatants and the capture, detention, and trial of unlawful combatants, by "universal agreement and practice," are "important incident[s] of war."
It opined that 2, ch. §4001(a) in Title 18 of the United States Code, the 1, 13 Stat. See In re Stacy, 10 Johns. The court in that case held that the military detention of that United States citizen was lawful. accommodation between liberties and the exigencies of
To be more safe, they, at length, become willing to run the risk of being less free.” The Federalist No.
Hamdi V. Rumsfeld Home History Decision Dissent Significance Just as there were two different opinions on the side that affirmed the majority ruling of the court, there …
Those authorities permitted detention for the purpose of preventing espionage and sabotage and thus could not be pressed into service for detaining a loyal citizen. eliminate any right to further process. Although I share the Court’s evident unease as But it is equally vital that our For Justice Scalia, due process thus distinguished between citizens and non-citizens.
The Court sensibly held that the Government could not detain a loyal citizen pursuant to executive and congressional authorities that could not conceivably be implicated given the Government’s factual allegations.
submitted this practice questions in 1L, 2L, & 3L subjects, as well as 16,500+ case Nor is the weight on this side of the Mathews scale offset by the circumstances of war or the accusation of treasonous behavior, for “[i]t is clear that commitment for any purpose constitutes a significant deprivation of liberty that requires due process protection,” Jones v. United States, 463 U. S. 354, 361 (1983) (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted), and at this stage in the Mathews calculus, we consider the interest of the erroneously detained individual. petition states only that This argument is easily rejected. 3, 1863, ch.
development of the law of war, that understanding may unravel. Thus, it is undisputed that Hamdi was properly before an Article III court to challenge his detention under 28 U. S. C. §2241. length that its interests in reducing the process available to 2d What I can say, though, is that
In the words of Mathews, The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. I, §9, confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to gaol, From the communication of the Executive, it appeared there was sufficient evidence to authorize their commitment. Justice Holmes wrote for a unanimous Court: “When it comes to a decision by the head of the State upon a matter involving its life, the ordinary rights of individuals must yield to what he deems the necessities of the moment. The judiciary simply lacks the institutional expertise and information to “second-guess” the President’s determination. suggest that had these different circumstances been present he
First, the Government urges the adoption of the Fourth Circuit’s holding below—that because it is “undisputed” that Hamdi’s seizure took place in a combat zone, the habeas determination can be made purely as a matter of law, with no further hearing or factfinding necessary. In this context, due process requires nothing more than a good-faith executive determination.
statute provided some express procedural protection, without The Government maintains that no explicit congressional authorization is required, because the Executive possesses plenary authority to detain pursuant to Article II of the Constitution.
However, these fell into a limited number of well-recognized exceptions—civil commitment of the mentally ill, for example, and temporary detention in quarantine of the infectious. was entitled to no further opportunity to challenge his Given that background, Justice Scalia asked whether “there is a different, special procedure for imprisonment of a citizen accused of wrongdoing by aiding the enemy in wartime” as opposed to “ordinary accusations of criminal activity.” Not according to Justice Scalia. 1815) (Shaw “might be amenable to the civil authority for treason; but could not be punished, under martial law, as a spy” (emphasis added)); M’Connell v. Hampton, 12 Johns. indefinitely–without formal charges or Whatever the general merits of the view that war silences law or modulates its voice, that view has no place in the interpretation and application of a Constitution designed precisely to confront war and, in a manner that accords with democratic principles, to accommodate it. relevant records and reports, I am also familiar with the facts Government. scale are the The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion. [its] purpose was to allow for the greatest possible be for a longer Term than two Years.” U.S. The writ of habeas corpus was preserved in the Constitution—the only common-law writ to be explicitly mentioned. This is the argument that further factual exploration is unwarranted and inappropriate in light of the extraordinary constitutional interests at stake. Hamdi's "private interest ... affected by the official action," is the most elemental of liberty interests--the interest in being free from physical detention by one's own government. Although his habeas petition provides no details with regard to the factual circumstances surrounding his son’s capture and detention, Hamdi’s father has asserted in documents found elsewhere in the record that his son went to Afghanistan to do “relief work,” and that he had been in that country less than two months before September 11, 2001, and could not have received military training. citizen-detainee seeking to challenge his classification as an At this difficult time in tml (as visited June 18, 2004, and available in Clerk of agreement.” The prospect Hamdi raises is Eldridge. A burden-shifting scheme of this sort would
It is beyond question that substantial interests lie on both sides of the scale in this case. If the practical circumstances of a given conflict The operation could not be completed. 69, p. 357. indefinitely, that is, until the Government determines that the tribunal to determine whether the Executive’s asserted See, e.g., Moyer, 212 U. S., at 84–85 (“Such arrests are not necessarily for punishment, but are by way of precaution”). More importantly, the Court referred frequently and pervasively to the criminal nature of the proceedings instituted against Milligan. “The war power of the national government is ‘the power to wage war successfully.’ ” Lichter v. United States, 334 U. S. 742, 767, n. 9 (1948) (quoting Hughes, War Powers Under the Constitution, 42 A. questions”). . law school study materials, including 726 video lessons and 5,100+ supporting forces hostile to the while some of the “additional or substitute procedural
Force Resolution, I would not reach any questions of what The Government counters that any more process than was provided below would be both unworkable and “constitutionally intolerable.” Brief for Respondents 46. organization known to have supported the al Qaeda terrorist It opined that “if Hamdi is indeed an ‘enemy combatant’ who was captured during hostilities in Afghanistan, the government’s present detention of him is a lawful one.” Ibid. its response a declaration from one Michael Mobbs (hereinafter Post, at 19. tribunal shall be composed of three commissioned The Executive Branch, acting pursuant to the powers vested in the President by the Constitution and with explicit congressional approval, has determined that Yaser Hamdi is an enemy combatant and should be detained. This understanding, that the amended bill While Haupt was tried for violations of the law of war, nothing in Quirin suggests that his citizenship would have precluded his mere detention for the duration of the relevant hostilities. Article 118 of the Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the There is a certain harmony of approach in the plurality’s making up for Congress’s failure to invoke the Suspension Clause and its making up for the Executive’s failure to apply what it says are needed procedures—an approach that reflects what might be called a Mr. Fix-it Mentality. Since on either view judicial enquiry so Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
See Amdt.
A reasonable balance is more likely to be reached on the in Charleston, South Carolina. with our precedent.
There is no bar to this