Topic > Hamdi et al. v. Rumsfeld - 4708

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 against the abuses at Guantanamo Bay. In this case, four British citizens are suing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, as well as a number of Army and Air Force generals and political apparatchiks for allegedly authorizing the use of torture in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. The four were captured in Afghanistan, either by the Americans or by America's ally, the Northern Alliance, and transported to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba where they were held for over two years. There their status was not that of enemy combatants, which granted them certain protections under the Geneva Convention, but rather that of unlawful combatants. They were held without being charged with any crime, without legal representation, and were never even brought before a military judge until Rasul v. Bush did not establish their habeas corpus rights. They were released in March 2004 without any charges. Their lawsuit accused Rumsfeld et al. of false imprisonment and torture. They were reportedly hit with rifle butts, punched, kicked, “chained” in cramped and painful positions, and threatened with unmuzzled dogs. Their cells were cold and weathered, little more than cages, and medical care was denied. Plaintiffs allege that this was the result of a deliberate and foreseeable action taken by Defendant Rumsfeld to flout or circumvent the United States Constitution, federal statute law, United States treaty obligations, and rules of law. international custom long established. This action was taken in an ill-conceived and illegal attempt to use torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading acts to force non-existent information… middle of paper… Hamdi's accusations are correct. And the jurisdictional argument was rejected by the Supreme Court in Rasul v. Rumsfeld. The final part needed to make a strong case against Rumsfeld et al. it would be up to the Supreme Court to find the conditions under which they are held liable under the Alien Tort Statute. This is the most ambiguous piece of the case. The issues of evidence and jurisdiction have already been addressed; the third and final piece will determine the turning point in Hamdi's case. I believe there are actionable causes under the Alien Tort Statute in this case. Close examination of the Founders demonstrates a liberal (“expansive” is Scalia's pejorative term) interpretation of the statute. With these actionable lawsuits as the cornerstone of the case, Rumsfled et al. he will have to put up a strenuous defense to avoid losing an embarrassing and expensive suit.