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 administrations legal defense of the abuses at Guantanamo Bay. In this courting, four British citizens atomic number 18 suing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as well as a multitude of Army and Air Force Generals and policy apparatchiks for allegedly authorizing the use of crucify in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. The four were captured in Afghanistan, either by the Statesns or Americas ally, the Northern Alliance, and transported to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba where they were held for over two years. Their spatial relation there was not as enemy combatant, which guaranteed them certain protections under the geneva Convention, but rather as unlawful combatants. They were held without be charged of a crime, without legal representation and were never even brought before a legions judge until Rasul v. Bush established their Habeas Corpus rights. They were re leased in March 2004 without being charged.Their suit accused Rumsfeld et al. of false imprisonment and torture. They were allegedly hit with disinvest butts, punched, kicked, short shackled in cramped, painful positions and threatened with unmuzzled dogs. Their cells were cold and assailable to the elements, little better than cages and medical care was denied. The plaintiffs contend that this was the result of study and foreseeable action taken by Defendant Rumsfeld to flout or evade the United States Constitution, federal statutory law, United States treaty obligations and unyielding established norms of customary international law. This action was taken in a misconceived and illegal attempt to utilize torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrade acts to coerce nonexistent inform... ... Hamdis allegations are correct. And the jurisdictional argument has been rejected by the Supreme Court in Rasul v. Rumsfeld. The final part required 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 double piece in the case. The proof and jurisdiction issues have been dealt with already the ternary and final piece will make or break Hamdis case.I believe there are actionable causes in this case under the Alien Tort Statute. A close examination of the Founders provides curtilage 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.