The united states should not be detaining citizens in wartime

Early life[ edit ] Fred was born in Oakland, Californiainthe third of four sons to Japanese parents Kotsui Aoki and Kakusaburo Korematsu, who immigrated to the United States in

The united states should not be detaining citizens in wartime

Hamdi during his detention at Guantanamo Bay. Early life and capture[ edit ] Main article: That same year, he and his family moved to Saudi Arabia. He was then captured less than two months after his arrival by the Afghan Northern Alliance.

They turned him over to U. The administration argued that this power was constitutional and necessary to effectively fight the War on Terrordeclared by the Congress of the United States in the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed after the September 11 terrorist attacks.

The government used its detention authority to ensure that terrorists were no longer a threat while active combat operations continued and to ensure suspects could be fully interrogated.

District case[ edit ] Judge Robert G. Doumar ruled that Hamdi's father was a proper " next friend " having standing to sue on behalf of his son, and ordered that a federal public defender be given access to Hamdi.

On appeal, however, the Fourth Circuit reversed the District Court's order, ruling that the District Court had failed to give proper deference to the government's "intelligence and security interests," and that it should proceed with a properly deferential investigation.

The case was sent back to the District Court, which denied the government's motion to dismiss Hamdi's petition. Judge Doumar found the government's evidence supporting Hamdi's detention "woefully inadequate," and based predominantly on hearsay and bare assertions.

The District Court ordered the government to produce numerous documents for in camera review by the court that would enable it to perform a "meaningful judicial review," such as the statements by the Northern Alliance regarding Hamdi's capture, the dates and circumstances of his capture and interrogations, and a list of all the officials involved in the determination of his "enemy combatant" status.

Appellate case[ edit ] The government appealed Judge Doumar's order to produce the evidence, and the Fourth Circuit again reversed the District Court.

Because it was "undisputed that Hamdi was captured in a zone of active combat in a foreign theater of conflict," the Fourth Circuit said that it was not proper for any court to hear a challenge of his status. It ruled that the broad warmaking powers delegated to the President under Article Two of the United States Constitution and the principle of separation of powers prohibited courts from interfering in this vital area of national security.

After the Fourth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en bancHamdi's father appealed to the U. It granted certiorari review and reversed the Fourth Circuit's ruling. Opinion of the Court[ edit ] Though no single opinion of the Court commanded a majority, eight of the nine justices of the Court agreed that the executive branch does not have the power to hold a U.

Justice O'Connor used the three-part test of Mathews v. Eldridge to limit the due process to be received. This required notice of the charges and an opportunity to be heard, though because of the burden of ongoing military conflict upon the executive, normal procedural protections, such as placing the burden of proof on the government or the ban on hearsayneed not apply.

O'Connor suggested the Department of Defense create fact-finding tribunals similar to the AR to determine whether a detainee merited continued detention as an enemy combatant. O'Connor did not write at length on Hamdi's right to an attorney, because by the time the Court rendered its decision, Hamdi had been granted access to one.

But O'Connor wrote that Hamdi "unquestionably has the right to access to counsel in connection with the proceedings on remand. Justice O'Connor also limited the reach of the Court's conclusion regarding the executive authority to detain enemy combatants: For purposes of this case, the enemy combatant that [the government] is seeking to detain is an individual who, it alleges, was part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners in Afghanistan and who engaged in an armed conflict against the United States there.

We therefore answer only the narrow question before us, whether the detention of citizens falling within that definition is authorized. Instead the constitution empowers the judiciary to act as a check on executive power in this realm.

Indeed, the position that the courts must forgo any examination of the individual case and focus exclusively on the legality of the broader detention scheme cannot be mandated by any reasonable view of separation of powers, as this approach serves only to condense power into a single branch of government.

We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens. Sawyer ,' U. Whatever power the United States Constitution envisions for the Executive in its exchanges with other nations or with enemy organizations in times of conflict, it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake.

Likewise, we have made clear that, unless Congress acts to suspend it, the Great Writ of habeas corpus allows the Judicial Branch to play a necessary role in maintaining this delicate balance of governance, serving as an important judicial check on the Executive's discretion in the realm of detentions.

Absent suspension of the writ by Congress, a citizen detained as an enemy combatant is entitled to this process. Souter concurrence[ edit ] Justice David Souterjoined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburgconcurred with the plurality's judgment that due process protections must be available for Hamdi to challenge his status and detention, providing a majority for that part of the ruling.

However, they dissented from the plurality's ruling that AUMF established Congressional authorization for the detention of enemy combatants. Scalia dissent[ edit ] Justice Antonin Scalia 's dissent, joined by Justice John Paul Stevenswent the furthest in restricting the executive power of detention.


Scalia asserted that based on historical precedent, the government had only two options to detain Hamdi:Scalia did not agree that the president was authorized to detain citizens as enemy combatants without charges.

Nor did he agree with the “tailored” process outlined by O’Connor. The government, he argued, has only two options if a citizen is accused of waging war against it. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, U.S. (), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court recognized the power of the U.S.

government to detain enemy combatants, including U.S. citizens, but ruled that detainees who are U.S.

The united states should not be detaining citizens in wartime

citizens must have the rights of due process, and the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial authority. When the United States entered the war in April , there was strong opposition to both the war and the draft.

Many citizens argued that the goal of the United States was not to “make the world safe for democracy,” but to protect the investments of the wealthy. Oct 29,  · Watch video · Executive Order affected the lives about , people—the majority of whom were American citizens.

Canada soon followed suit, relocating 21, of its Japanese residents from its west coast. Roosevelt's order affected , people of Japanese descent, two-thirds of whom were native-born citizens of the United States. The Issei were the first generation of Japanese in this country; the Nisei were the second generation, numbering 70, American citizens at the time of internment.

To the contrary, American citizens and their rights were the only casualties. The war with France never came, and the fear of the French subsided. when the United States is at war, Habeus corpus is a Latin term which means "you should have the body," capturing the idea that the government should not detain people against their will.

Fred Korematsu - Wikipedia