Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
In April, 2004, Hamdan, who was captured by Afghani militia forces in Afghanistan, filed a petition for habeas corpus to challenge his confinement in the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base. Hamdan, who admits that he served as Osama bin Laden's personal driver, has been charged with several counts of terrorism and was designated for trial before a military commission. After the Supreme Court's 2004 decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Hamdan received a formal hearing before a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, which determinded that Hamdan was an enemy combatant, "either a member of or affiliated with Al Qaeda," for whom continued detention was required. In November 2004, the district court granted Hamdan's petition, finding in part that he could not be tried by a military commission unless he was first found not to be a prisoner of war under the 1949 Geneva Convention.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed. First, it rejected Hamdan's claim that the President violated the separation of powers inherent in the constitution when he established the military commissions in Guantánamo. The court held Congress authorized the President to establish the commission through its Authorization for the Use of Military Force, issued in 2001, and two statutes–10 U.S.C. § 821 and 10 U.S.C. § 836. Second, it rejected Hamdan's claim that the 1949 Geneva Convention can be judicially enforced in federal court.
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 Congress's Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub. L. No. 10740, 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?
