Hamdi V. Rumsfeld and Boumediene V. Bush

Marr Genea Omamojasa

Columbia College

MSCJ 510 A

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Boumediene v. Bush

Thesis

Amid the Administration's execution of war in Iraqi and Afghanistan in the post 9/11 period,  President  George W. Bush and President Barrack Obama, made the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, to broaden the powers of the Commander- in -Chief as it involves the prosecution of war crimes in the name of the United States of America. The United States prides itself as the greatest democracy on the face of the earth.  Under the U.S. Constitution, America is comprised of three branches of government that allows checks and balances on the power among the three branches.

Cases brought before the U.S. Supreme Court by the Executive branch concerning prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, maintain that the President has the power under the Constitution, to detain these war prisoners without constitutional due process. The affirmation by the Court of selected cases of the Executive branches position set off a firestorm of controversy by human rights advocates.  The Court's decision was a remarkable step which prompted the discussion of whether the Court's post 9/11 rulings encouraged or reduced one sided Executive branch actions dissolving the common freedoms of prisoners at Guantanamo.

 This paper investigates the Court's choices in these cases and their impact on the Executive branch of government in general, and the war time powers of the President in particular. The Court's choices were viable in controlling Executive power, yet they to some degree diminished the prisoner's constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. This paper gives a structure which lays out how constitutional freedoms of war time prisoners can be affirmed or reduced with rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Into the interior of Hamdi and Boumediene cases, the true refinements are the writ of habeas corpus and the rights to due procedure have extensive connection, so far their affiliation has never been less vital. After September 11, 2001, the United States kept many suspected terrorists that legitimized difficulties utilizing the writ. During the initial historic point Supreme Court cases tending to those confinements, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the majority mostly depended on the Due Process Clause to clarify what method courts must take after. Intellectuals expected due procedure would administer the zone. Nevertheless, with regard to Boumediene v. Bush, the Court rejected the due procedure way and rather held that the Suspension Clause stretched out habeas corpus procedure to illegal prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Boumediene accurately benched the examination in the Suspension Clause, not the Due Process Clause (Cornell Law Review).

Our Supreme Court apprehended to facilitate the Suspension Clause requests an established habeas process, refereeing if the detainment is justifiably and accurately permitted. This perspective complicated the arrangement of benchmarks that judges as of now use in official confinement cases, furthermore has suggestions for conjugal habeas; it could position blamelessness claims in the Suspension Clause. All the more extensively, this Suspension Clause speculation revealed shared characteristics in the formation of ruling and case law controlling habeas corpus over its variety of utilizations to official confinement and position certainty examination. “Habeas analysis is significantly more focal part in the intricate regulation of detainment than researchers anticipated, on the grounds that habeas audit does not rely on upon hidden due procedure rights” (Cornell Law Review).  

A judge rather concentrates on whether a detainment is approved. Subsequently, habeas examination can contrarily assume a pivotal part when former procedure is lacking. Essentially, the Suspension Clause guarantees habeas corpus starts where due procedure closes

 “The writ of habeas corpus and the privilege to due procedure have long been connected together. The Supreme Court has called vindication of due procedure the memorable office of habeas corpus” Taking after dim beginnings at regular law, habeas corpus and due procedure together framed an intense current in the flood of constitutionalism (Cornell Law Review).

After some time, judges joined ideas of due procedure to the improvement of the writ of habeas corpus, the colossal writ of freedom that permits a judge to ask into the lawfulness of a detainee's confinement. In any case, as of not long ago, government courts have had few events to characterize the relationship between the Suspension Clause, which restrains Congress' capacity to suspend the Benefit of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Cornell Law Review),

and not including Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which express that no individual should be denied of life, freedom, or property "without due procedure of law" (Cornell Law Review).  “The relationship between the Suspension Clause and the Due Process Clause has clearing suggestions for the detainment of suspected terrorists and military engagements in numerous nations after September 11, 2001” (Cornell Law Review). Here, Boumediene v. Bush, the Supreme Court surprisingly unmistakably gave the Suspension Clause autonomous power as a positive wellspring of legal energy to settle habeas petitions and as a wellspring of important procedure to detainees in authority. With results of this choice, “Congress now can't order locale stripping enactment to deny official prisoners access to legal survey of the sort that it has twice attempted and neglected to do in the previous decade” (Cornell Law Review).

Even more, a non-civilian kept as a national security danger may now have bureaucratic rights to challenge the detainment. Indeed, even as the administrative has made nuanced positions on force and strategy for confining persons for national security reasons, and even as Congress has embraced new detainment approving enactment, the legal keeps on assuming a focal part, however now and then reluctantly and respectfully, in confinement evaluation.

Within the cases here that restructured habeas statute, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, in 2004, and Boumediene, in 2008, our Court system joined the Suspension Clause and the Due Process Clause only just. Hamdi appeared to make obvious that the Due Process Clause loomed victory. Hamdi, the exact extent of what due procedure requisites needed appeared inquiry for the eventual fate of official confinement. Accordingly, the legislature hurriedly executed regulatory screening techniques for prisoners, apparently to confirm to the absolute maximum that due procedure appear to necessitate (Cornell Law Review).