Padilla v. Rumsfeld, Ex Parte Quirin, and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Essay Example

Introduction

The cases of Padilla v. Rumsfeld, Ex Parte Quirin, and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld have brought into attention the kind of treatment and rights being given to detainees regarded as enemy combatants by the U. S government as well as the government’s power in detaining such people.   This paper provides an analysis of the cases mentioned and discuses Quirin provisions for Guantanamo Bay detainees as well as rights denied to detainees as gathered from Padilla case. It also looks at what the Hamdi case was able to achieve in terms of additional rights for detainees.

Padilla v. Rumsfeld, Ex Parte Quirin, and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

The Padilla v, Rumsfeld case is about Jose Padilla who was arrested in May 2002 and thereafter declared an enemy combatant by the president. Padilla, a U. S citizen was accused of having links with al-Qaeda and that he was planning to bomb the United States. According to the U.S government, Padilla had planned with al-Qaeda to use a radiological “dirty” bomb (Human Rights Watch, 2006). He was taken into military custody in South Carolina where he stayed for about three and a half years. Later on, the government brought him to trial under different charges where he was alleged to be involved in an overseas recruitment process which was aimed at kidnapping, murdering and injuring people. Apart from this, Padilla was also being given restricted access to his lawyers. The following year the Court of Appeals ruled that Padilla was being held indefinitely by government and directed Donald Rumsfeld, the Defense Secretary to have the detainee released. In 2008 after the trial process, Padilla was found guilty of being involved in terrorist conspiracies and was to serve 15 years and 8 months in prison.

Ex Parte Quirin involved a case in which 8 men, all German nationals who had been sent to the United States with an aim of destroying war industries and facilities. Under a secret military tribunal, the German nationals were sentenced to death except two of them named Dasch and Burger who had turned themselves in and cooperated with the FBI. The men were charged with violating the law of war through provision of intelligence information to the enemy. The U.S Military Order which provides for suspected terrorists to be tried is based on the Ex Parte Quirin. Military Commissions therefore have the right to capture and try detainees including those at Guantanamo Bay. This meant that the suspects were not to be allowed any civil jury trial.  It does not however mean that prisoners are not supposed to have access to legal counsel since the 8 Germany citizens had legal representation.

In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case, Hamdi, also a U. S citizen was arrested in Afghanistan as part of the government’s war against terrorism on being suspected of having links with the Taliban. Hamdi was held in detention as an enemy combatant without trial for about two years and with limited rights. After the government was critiqued on its stand regarding the rights of detainees and promised to let Hamdi have access to a lawyer, Schmitt (2003) reports that the Bush Administration defended itself by saying that it still had the right to have such suspects detained without trial for the duration of the conflict. In Hamdi’s case, the appeals court had claimed that Geneva Conventions were not applicable and that the detainee was not entitled to certain rights, a decision which the Supreme Court reversed. In delivering judgment to the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (03-6696) 542 U. S. 507 (2004), Justice O’Connor articulated the fact that Fourth Circuit had rejected Hamdi’s claim that Article 5 of the Geneva Convention did not allow unlawful detention of suspects.

The court claimed that the Authorization for use of Military Force which followed the September 11 attack allowed this by saying that “capturing and detaining enemy combatants is an inherent part of warfare,” (O’ Connor, 2004). Ex Parte Quirin was also applied in Hamdi’s case since it provided for the kind of treatment to be given to any person whether a U. S. citizen or not as an enemy combatant if found to be one. This was after Hamdi had claimed he was unlawfully detained and denied constitutional rights as a U.S citizen.

Quirin and Guantanamo Bay Detainees

Quirin authorized the use Military Commissions where suspects could be arrested and detained for trial. The case is used in the execution of terror suspects captured by the United States and considered unlawful combatants. It therefore justifies the way suspects at Guantanamo Bay are treated and this is seen from the disputes that have been lodge against it. It has been claimed that Quirin does not provide for the protection of prisoner rights as provided for in the Geneva Convention. According to Quirin, 317 U. S. 1 (1942), anyone who took up arms against the United States regardless of nationality may be regarded as an enemy combatant and will be treated as so. However, anyone arrested should always be treated as suspect and as a U. S citizen has civil rights which must be upheld regardless of fact that the government is fighting against terrorism. This means that the Geneva Convention should be applied when dealing with the rights of such individuals in the future.

Additional Rights Being Denied Detainees at Guantanamo Bay

Detainees at Guantanamo Bay are being denied the right to defend themselves as happened to Padilla. He was detained for three years and was not given a chance to defend himself for whatever charges that had brought against him including having communication with a lawyer as part of his rights. Human Rights Watch (2006) explains that the Supreme Court in 2006 declined to hear Jose Padilla’s case on grounds that he was out of custody and criminally charged. This means the U. S government could detain suspects and for several years without taking them to trial. Nevertheless, there was no provision to hold the government liable of any offense in case the detainees to be charged or released.

Additional Rights Given to Detainees in the Hamdi Case

The ruling provides that the U. S. court allow for both U. S. and foreign citizens to challenge their detention.  Analyzing Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case, Anderson (2005) says that the Supreme Court required enemy combatants held by the United States government to be allowed to defend themselves. As a result, detainees were allowed to have additional rights of having an impartial hearing that was required to be under limited evidence.  Thus, detainees at Guantanamo Bay can have hearings at the U.S courts to protest against their detention by the government.  However, what remains unclear is who can be termed as an enemy combatant since the president still has the right of detaining a citizen who is proven to be an enemy combatant.

Conclusion

From the above cases, it is quite clear that there are conflicting views with regard to the treatment of unlawful combatants. The paper has reviewed the cases giving the significant concerns that arose out of the trials. Padilla and Hamdi were both seeking relief by claiming that they were unlawfully detained with regard to human rights as well as constitutional rights as citizens of the unites states. The Ex Parte Quirin case brings to attention the basis of the treatment of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. However, detainees can now benefit from civil jury trials as a result of the Supreme Court ruling.

References

Anderson, J. (2005). Hamdi v. Rumsfeld: Judicious balancing at the intersection of the Executive’s power to detain and the citizen-detainee’s right to due process. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. Vol.95. No. 03.

Human Rights Watch (2006).  U. S.: Statement on the Jose Padilla case. Scoop World Independent News. Retrieved from http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0604/S00116.htm

O’Connor, J. (2004). Yaser Esam Hamdi and Esam Fouad Hamdi, as next friend of Yaser Esam Hamdi, Petition-ERS v. Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, et al. on writ of certiorari to the United States court of appeals for the Fourth Circuit. (Justice O’Connor announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which The Chief Justice, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Breyer join). Supreme Court. No. 03—6696. Retrieved from <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-6696.ZO.html>

Schmitt, R. B. (2003). White House defends Hamdi’s limited rights: in a high court brief, the Bush Administration says war customs allow denying suspect counsel.  Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2003/dec/04/nation/na-hamdi4