Hamdi et al. v. Rumsfeld Essay -- Guantanamo Bay Secretary of Defense

Hamdi et al. v. Rumsfeld Hamdi et al. v. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, et al. could prove the undoing of the Bush administration’s legal defense of the abuses at Guantanamo Bay. In this case, four British citizens are suing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as well as a host of Army and Air Force Generals and policy apparatchiks for allegedly authorizing the use of torture in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. The four were captured in Afghanistan, either by Americans or America’s ally, the Northern Alliance, and transported to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba where they were held for over two years. Their status there was not as enemy combatant, which guaranteed them certain protections under the Geneva Convention, but rather as unlawful combatants. They were held without being charged of a crime, without legal representation and were never even brought before a military judge until Rasul v. Bush established their Habeas Corpus rights. They were released in March 2004 without being charged. Their suit accused Rumsfeld et al. of false imprisonment and torture. They were allegedly hit with rifle butts, punched, kicked, â€Å"short shackled† in cramped, painful positions and threatened with unmuzzled dogs. Their cells were cold and exposed to the elements, little better than cages and medical care was denied. The plaintiffs contend that this was the result of deliberate and foreseeable action taken by Defendant Rumsfeld to flout or evade the United States Constitution, federal statutory law, United States treaty obligations and long established norms of customary international law. This action was taken in a misconceived and illegal attempt to utilize torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading acts to coerce nonexistent inform... ... Hamdi’s allegations are correct. And the jurisdictional argument has been rejected by the Supreme Court in Rasul v. Rumsfeld. The final part necessary for strong suit against Rumsfeld et al. would be for the Supreme Court to find the conditions in which they were held to be actionable under the Alien Tort Statute. This is the most ambiguous piece in the case. The proof and jurisdiction issues have been dealt with already; the third and final piece will make or break Hamdi’s case. I believe there are actionable causes in this case under the Alien Tort Statute. A close examination of the Founders provides evidence for a liberal (â€Å"expansive† is the pejorative term Scalia uses) interpretation of the statute. With these actionable causes as a capstone to the case, Rumsfled et al. will have to put a spirited defense or risk losing an embarrassing and expensive suit.