Hamdi Vs Rumsfeld Case Analysis

Separation of powers are going through an “identity crises” at this time. The rise of international laws that are unregulated and there is no higher authority to check and oversee the countries’ actions can cause even more internal conflicts within our own government because the three branches are unable to agree on how to handle each case. The more international conflicts arise so do new situations and cases that are hot topics within the political realms.
Some examples of this, are the following case. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Both these cases took place during a period of “peace”. The United States was barely becoming more active in international affairs and conflicts. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the question arose weather or president had the authority to label U.S. citizens as “enemy combatant” and detain the indefinitely. Mr. Hamdi was detained as a participant combatant in the Afghanistan, a country in which the U.S. remained peaceful but had internal comfits/ issues with international terrorism. He was detained under the AUMF, an act passed by congress in September 14,2001. Since we were not in a state of war, only conflict, it was unconstitutional. In the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Mr. Hamdan was actually detained as a conspirator with Osama Bin Laden. Again the Supreme Court favored Mr. Hamdan due to the fact that the president did not
…show more content…
This idea goes back to the attempt to maintain peace and good standing with other nations. Some Americans might see this as kissing ass to other nations, but this is not done for that reason. This act of “kindness” is for the sole purpose of keeping peace. The United States is a very powerful nation, but they are no longer the big fish in a little pond. The U.S. has to do what is in the best interest of the nation, for

Related Documents