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, “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...
... middle of paper ...
... 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 (“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.
The evidence presented to myself and the other juror’s proves that Tyrone Washburn is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the murder of his wife, Elena Washburn. On March 12, 1979 Elena Washburn was strangled in the living room of her family’s home. Her body was then dragged to the garage, leaving a trail of blood from the living room to the place it was found. Her husband, Tyrone Washburn, found her in the family’s garage on March 13, 1979 at 1:45 A.M. When officer Dale Chambers arrived at the scene he found her lying face down in a pool of blood. The solid evidence in this case proves only one person, Tyrone Washburn, is guilty of murder.
The conviction of guilty offenders when adhering to the guidelines of the NSW criminal trial process is not difficult based on the presumption of innocence. However, due to features of the criminal trial process, established by the adversarial system of trial, cases can often involve copious amounts of time and money, particularly evident in the case of R vs Rogerson and McNamara where factors such as time and money are demonstrated to be in excess. In addition, characteristics of the adversarial system such as plea bargaining has the power to hinder convictions due to the accused having the authority to hire experienced and expensive lawyers to argue their case, hence maintaining their innocence.
The Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court in March 1857 was one of the major steps
In the case of U.S. v Jones, the judicial branch had to address the questionable topic of whether or not the Fourth Amendment was violated (). Since this case was not black and white and did bring up many questions as to what was constitutional, the judges had to use judicial review. Judicial review is the power that allows judges to interpret the meaning of laws (Class, March 13). Once a law is understood a certain way, the people must follow it (Class, __). The U.S. v Jones case deals with the Bill of Rights (United, 1). This is due to the circumstance that the Fourth Amendment is included in the Bill of Rights document stating that “searches and seizures” cannot be done without a warrant (Class,___). The case of U.S. v Jones was about the violation of Jones’s Fourth Amendment when a GPS device was placed on his jeep without his consent because he was suspected of drug possession (United, 1). Since judges have the power to informally amend the Constitution using judicial review (Class, ___), they must take into consideration many contributing elements when making a decision.
If the right to habeas corpus is not being extended to the detainee, the majority judges are of the opinion that the branches such as executive and etc. except judicial, would have a whole control over Guantanamo Bay causing the judicial branch to have no position in reviewing the legal processes. The majority judges had stated
subject to the O'Brien test, and that the second was a direct maneuver to limit expression.
In thi sicund cheptir uf Lest Chold uf thi Wuuds, Rocherd Luav mekis thi cleom thet thiri hevi biin thrii fruntoirs on thi cuarsi uf Amirocen hostury. Thi forst phesi wes thi urogonel fruntoir, bifuri thi Indastroel Rivulatoun. Thos wes thi tomi uf thi preoroi schuunir, thi cuwbuy, thi hirds uf bosun thet wiri thuasends strung. Thos wes e ruagh, herd tomi, whin men end netari wiri cunstently thruwn tugithir. Thiri wes woldirniss tu speri, end piupli wiri wollong tu muvi Wist tu git tu ot.
In United States v. Alvarez, Xavier Alvarez claimed that he was a retired marine who had received the Congressional Medal of Honor in 1987 for being wounded repeatedly by the same person in combat. These claims were made in an attempt to have him gain more respect from his peers. The claim was that Alvarez had violated the Stolen Valor Act of 2005. The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 states that there are protections against claiming to have received some type of military honor, such as the Medal of Honor and other military decorations and awards (GovTrack). The Government stated that there was first amendment value applicable to Alvarez’s false statements, and that his statements caused harm to others. By making this statement, it was argued that the value of the award of Honor would drop and that this type of false speech falls under the same category as speaking falsely on behalf of the government or as a government official. However, since his statements were not made with the intention of financial benefits or special treatment, his false claims may not be illegal because they were made for the purpose of gaining respect.
To this day, Americans have many rights and privileges. Rights stated in the United States constitution may be simple and to the point, but the rights Americans have may cause debate to whether or not something that happens in society, is completely reasonable. The Texas v. Johnson case created much debate due to a burning of the American Flag. One may say the burning of the flag was tolerable because of the rights citizens of the United States have, another may say it was not acceptable due to what the American flag symbolizes for America. (Brennan and Stevens 1). Johnson was outside of his First Amendment rights, and the burning of the American flag was unjust due to what the flag means to America.
Constitutionally, the case at first appears to be a rather one-sided violation of the First Amendment as incorporated through the Fourteenth. The court, however, was of a different opinion: "...
In view of Guantanamo Bay, the existing population stands low. However, still open are the special military courts and camp. The Obama administration continues to retain broad programs on National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance, as well as formulating only modest reforms. On the same, the justice system shows great focus on cracking down on leakers of government secrets, while it clearly guards against court reviews of these secrets. For instance, the current administration has placed a ban on harsh interrogation, similarly to Bush administration. Conversely, the Obama administration under the arm of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) upheld the increase on drone strikes. Savage explores the process of policy continuation, with a broader insight into the underlying causes. The practical approach by the Obama administration on addressing threats, and resistance from congress and the Republican sides becomes unclear as pertains to the reasons for the current misunderstanding on policy formulations. A clear fact remains: both parties play a major role in the emergent policy frameworks under Obama administration. The current American government has created a philosophical strategy to reform that show sustenance of a variety of controversial decisions from past administrations,
The project manager will record and keep track of the issues related in the issues log, assign a proper ordering like ID, and keep all type of information.
Classification of Derivatives: Derivatives are classified in terms of their payoffs and as exchange traded and over the counters.
PLC: Fairfax media has reached the post maturity stage in the product life cycle and is beginning to decline due to the high expenses that are a result of the business’s structural layout. This issue is being addressed through the “Fairfax of the Future” program which was introduced to reduce the company’s cost base through strategic operational changes.
The story of the original song is quite complex, it focuses on a young mother looking back at her childhood and in particular her Father, how he leans on her and projects all of his issues onto her even though she is too young to deal with them all. She clearly understands it more as she's grown up and realised whats happened to her, her father has emotionally abused her, she expresses this with the line “you should have known better than to lean on me”. The character of the father in the original is obviously troubled. He is someone who can’t deal with his issues and uses the happiness of others to make himself feel better. The little girl has obviously had a bad childhood because of this, feeling that she is unable to trust any one and let anyone into her life emotionally, she states “Because of you I find it hard to trust not only me but everyone around me, because of you I am afraid”. Her father treated her that bad when she was younger that she is afraid of life and afraid to trust anyone. She later talks about her she “heard you cry every night in your sleep” I can only imagine that as a young child it must have been frightening for her to hear her father screaming in his sleep and having nightmares!