Legal Cases with Regards to Homeland Security Environment
The legal rulings in court cases: Hamdi v Rumsfeld, Hamden v Rumsfeld and Rasul v Bush focus on the role of the legal system in the Homeland Security environment. These cases have an impact on the judicial forum that is military tribunal v criminal trials, US citizen’s v non-citizens and the various options for incarceration. I shall be looking at the three cases with the view of identifying their reaction of both the congress and executive branches.
Hamdi v Rumsfeld case
It is a U.S Supreme Court case that established the authority of U.S government ability to detain an enemy during combat. It was inclusive the U.S citizens though the rights of due process should be considered for its citizens. It also gave the U.S. ability to challenge their enemy during combat through an impartial authority. By executing this ruling, it reserved the dismissal by a lower court of habeas corpus that had ruled in favor of the government. In that ruling by the lower court, a citizen was detained indefinitely as an illegal enemy during combat when he was captured in Afghanistan in 2001 (Manning, 2016, p. 45).
With regards to the ruling government admitted to some limited due process rights. These rights included determination of detainees’ specifics as an enemy during combat as well as the right for lawyer notwithstanding the Guantanamo detainees, non-citizens together with citizens. This application, in this case, is in consideration to the fact that two judges in the Hamdi majority that dissented were more reserved in regards to the detention powers the government had requested on Guantanamo detainees in the Hamdi case (Manning, 2016, p. 50).
Hamden v Rumsfeld
It was a case in the U.S. Supreme Court that reserved violation of both Geneva Convention signed in1949 as well as Uniform Code of Military Justice by the Bush administration. This illegality by the government was aimed at constituting a military commission to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay though they lacked jurisdiction (University of Maryland & Baltimore, 2005, p. 67). This case also provoked ability of the Congress to pass legislation that could allow the accused combatants to be tried before the military commission or illegality of the Supreme Court to hear such a ruling on violation of Geneva Convention of 1949.
The ruling had implications for other disputes with relations to the extent of power by the executive as well as theory on executive unitary. Furthermore, it undermines Bush’s government argument on domestic wiretapping in the National Security Agency without warrants as stipulated by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (University of Maryland & Baltimore, 2005, p. 89).
Rasul v Bush
It was a landmark ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court which had held that the judiciary has no jurisdiction over petitions regarding foreign nationals held at Guantanamo Bay. It leads to release of three men from the United Kingdom by the U.S government in March 2004 (The United States, 2004, p.56).
In response to this decision, Congress passed the Military Commission Act (2006) that lead to the establishment of a statutory body. This legislative body denied detainees the right to petition courts for habeas review. However, in June 2008 the Supreme Court ruled against the government in the case Boumediene v. Bush since they thought it could cause more Americans to be murdered (The United States, 2004, p.65).
Manning, G. (2016). Birthright Citizenship in the United States. Hauppauge: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
The United States. (2004). Rasul v. Bush (2004). Bethesda, MD: LexisNexis.
The university of Maryland, & Baltimore. (2005). Briefing book: Terrorism cases. Baltimore, Md.: The University of Maryland School of Law, Baltimore.