Hamdi Vs Rumsfeld Case Study

One defining case in this history of torture laws is that of Hamdi V. Rumsfeld (2002) and Hamdan V. Rumsfeld (2006). Both of these cases involved former detained individuals at Guantanamo Bay, one of the aforementioned secret prisons. In Hamdi V. Rumsfeld, the legality of indefinite detention and suspension of Habeas Corpus for “enemy combatants” was questioned. The only decision that SCOTUS was able to rest on was the Executive Branch does not have the power to hold a U.S. citizen indefinitely without basic due process protections enforceable through judicial review, which effectively extended the rights of Habeas Corpus. With this right in place, Salim Hamdan brought Attorney General Rumsfeld again to the Supreme Court, to put the constitutionality of Guantanamo Bay to the test of Judicial Review once again. The following decisions were made; “Military commissions are legitimate forums to try enemy combatants because they have been approved by Congress.
The war against al-Qaeda was not between two countries, and the Convention guarantees only a certain standard of judicial procedure—a "competent tribunal"—without speaking to the jurisdiction in which the prisoner must be tried. Under the terms of the Geneva Convention, al Qaeda and its members are not covered.” However, alongside this, the court ruled regarding Guantanamo Bay that “The military commission at issue lacks the power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949.” To put these rulings regarding treatment of prisoners and the lengths to which the Geneva Conventions dictate this, the example can be used of Brian and the Suspected Al Qaeda Terrorist. If Brian works for U.S. law enforcement, and has a suspect of string of robberies in custody, that suspect has certain rights that limit the things Brian can do to