HAMDAN v. RUMSFELD (FULL OPINION)

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Supreme Court and Military Tribunals or Guantanamo Bay and Uniform Code of Military Justice or Salim Ahmed Hamdan and Osama bin Laden or inmates and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or HAMDAN v. RUMSFELD and Justice Anthony Kennedy or and Justices Antonin Scalia

SALIM AHMED HAMDAN, Petitioner, v. DONALD RUMSFELD, ET AL., Respondents.

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2005 Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as isbeing done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has beenprepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus

HAMDAN v. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, ET AL.CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, No. 05–184. Argued March 28, 2006—Decided June 29, 2006

Pursuant to Congress’ Joint Resolution authorizing the President to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, or-ganizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, commit-ted or aided” the September 11, 2001, al Qaeda terrorist attacks(AUMF), U. S. Armed Forces invaded Afghanistan. During the hos-tilities, in 2001, militia forces captured petitioner Hamdan, a Yemeni national, and turned him over to the U. S. military, which, in 2002,transported him to prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Over a yearlater, the President deemed Hamdan eligible for trial by militarycommission for then-unspecified crimes. After another year, he was charged with conspiracy “to commit . . . offenses triable by militarycommission.” In habeas and mandamus petitions, Hamdan assertedthat the military commission lacks authority to try him because (1)neither congressional Act nor the common law of war supports trial by this commission for conspiracy, an offense that, Hamdan says, isnot a violation of the law of war; and (2) the procedures adopted totry him violate basic tenets of military and international law, includ-ing the principle that a defendant must be permitted to see and hear the evidence against him.

The District Court granted habeas relief and stayed the commis-sion’s proceedings, concluding that the President’s authority to estab-lish military commissions extends only to offenders or offenses triableby such a commission under the law of war; that such law includesthe Third Geneva Convention; that Hamdan is entitled to that Con-vention’s full protections until adjudged, under it, not to be a prisonerof war; and that, whether or not Hamdan is properly classified a prisoner of war, the commission convened to try him was established in violation of both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U. S. C. §801 et seq., and Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Con-vention because it had the power to convict based on evidence the ac-cused would never see or hear. The D. C. Circuit reversed. Althoughit declined the Government’s invitation to abstain from consideringHamdan’s challenge, cf. Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U. S. 738, the appeals court ruled, on the merits, that Hamdan was not entitled to re-lief because the Geneva Conventions are not judicially enforceable. The court also concluded that Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1, foreclosed anyseparation-of-powers objection to the military commission’s jurisdiction, and that Hamdan’s trial before the commission would violate neither the UCMJ nor Armed Forces regulations implementing the Geneva Conventions.

Held: The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded. 415 F. 3d 33, reversed and remanded. JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court, except as toParts V and VI–D–iv, concluding: FULL TEXT OF OPINION IN PDF FORMAT

BRIEF FOR PETITIONER SALIM AHMED HAMDAN

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Whether the military commission established by the President to try Petitioner and others similarly situated for alleged war crimes in the war on terror is duly authorized under Congresss Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224; the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); or the inherent powers of the President?
2. Whether Petitioner and others similarly situated can obtain judicial enforcement from an Article III court of rights protected under the 1949 Geneva Convention in an action for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the legality of their detention by the Executive branch? FULL Brief for Petitioner in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 05-184 IN PDF FORMAT

RELATED: Keywords Judge Alito, Monday, January 09, 2006 Nomination of Samuel A. Alito, Jr. (VIDEO), Monday, January 09, 2006 President Discusses Confirmation Hearing of Judge Alito, Monday, October 31, 2005 President Nominates Judge Samuel A. Alito (VIDEO), Thursday, September 29, 2005 Swearing-In Ceremony of Chief Justice Roberts (VIDEO, Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Leahy, YES on Roberts, Monday, September 05, 2005 Roberts Chief Justice (VIDEO), Wednesday, July 20, 2005 President After Meeting with Judge Roberts, Wednesday, July 20, 2005 John Roberts, Supreme Court, George Bush,