Hamdan v. Rumsfeld: Military Commissions in the "Global War on Terrorism"
Jennifer Elsea
Abstract
Open-access reader
Jennifer Elsea
Abstract
Open-access reader
The Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that President Bush's military order on the Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism exceeded his authority.The Court found that Congress did not strip the Court of jurisdiction to hear Hamdan v. Rumsfeld when it passed the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (title X of P.L.109-148), which limited federal court jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions from detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.Although the Court did not dispute the President's authority to hold the petitioner as an "enemy combatant ... for the duration of hostilities," it found the military tribunals convened to try detainees for violations of the law of war did not comply with the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) or the law of war, as incorporated in the UCMJ and embodied in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which the Court held applicable to the armed conflict.The three dissenters argued that the ruling would hamper the President's ability to fight terrorism.The majority left open the possibility that Congress could grant the necessary authority to create military commissions that depart from the UCMJ.One new bill, S. 3614, addresses the issue.In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, decided June 29, 2006, the Supreme Court reviewed the validity of military commissions established to try suspected terrorists of violations of the law of war, pursuant to President Bush's military order (M.O.). 1 The Court did not revisit its 2004 opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld 2 upholding the President's authority to detain individuals in connection with antiterrorism operations, and did not resolve whether the petitioner could claim prisoner-of-war (POW) status, but held that "in undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in this jurisdiction."3 CRS-2 4 344 F.Supp.2d 152 (D.D.C. 2004), rev'd 415 F.3d 33 (D.C.Cir.2005), cert.granted 2005 U.S.
OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that President Bush's military order on the Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism exceeded his authority.The Court found that Congress did not strip the Court of jurisdiction to hear Hamdan v. Rumsfeld when it passed the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (title X of P.L.109-148), which limited federal court jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions from detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.Although the Court did not dispute the President's authority to hold the petitioner as an "enemy combatant ... for the duration of hostilities," it found the military tribunals convened to try detainees for violations of the law of war did not comply with the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) or the law of war, as incorporated in the UCMJ and embodied in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which the Court held applicable to the armed conflict.The three dissenters argued that the ruling would hamper the President's ability to fight terrorism.The majority left open the possibility that Congress could grant the necessary authority to create military commissions that depart from the UCMJ.One new bill, S. 3614, addresses the issue.In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, decided June 29, 2006, the Supreme Court reviewed the validity of military commissions established to try suspected terrorists of violations of the law of war, pursuant to President Bush's military order (M.O.). 1 The Court did not revisit its 2004 opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld 2 upholding the President's authority to detain individuals in connection with antiterrorism operations, and did not resolve whether the petitioner could claim prisoner-of-war (POW) status, but held that "in undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in this jurisdiction."3 CRS-2 4 344 F.Supp.2d 152 (D.D.C. 2004), rev'd 415 F.3d 33 (D.C.Cir.2005), cert.granted 2005 U.S.
Key concepts: Habeas corpus, Law, Geneva Conventions, Political science, Supreme court, Jurisdiction, Law of war, Terrorism