Rumsfeld v. Padilla
The SCOTUS did not make any ruling in this case since the court discovered that the case had been inappropriately filed. According to the federal policy, an appeal for a writ of habeas corpus can only be brought before the court by the individual directly accountable for a prisoner’s detention (Rumsfeld et al., 2009). In my view, I would have ruled in support of Padilla since he was an American legal resident who was deprived of his sixth amendment right to a lawyer. The issue before the SCOTUS was the aspect of restraining American citizens for being an enemy combatant (Rivkin & Casey, 2004). In as much as Padilla was an assailant combat since he was associated with the terror group Al-Qaeda, I believe that he should not have been denied his rights because he was a U.S citizen.
Hamden v Rumsfeld
Among the various Supreme Court decisions about the legal status of detainees imprisoned during the fight against terror, Hamden v Rumsfeld extricates itself since the petitioner is a U.S Native. The American federal government claims to have the war powers to imprison an American indeterminately, while Yaser Esam Hamdi fights for constitutional legal process despite the aspect that he was apprehended on a battleground in Afghanistan (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 2008). I do not support this case since the government’s terror-fighting practices as well as the citizen’s rights to habeas corpus. The government went against Hamdi’s Fifth Amendment right by arresting him for an indefinite period without the services of an attorney due to the allegation of being an enemy combatant.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Rasul v Bush
The SCOTUS ruled in the case of Rasul v Bush that alien “enemy fighters” detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station were granted the right to petition the legitimacy of their imprisonment in a court of law (Duignan, 2018). I thoroughly concur with this ruling because extending such a right to an enemy could be viewed as a logical practice and a significant achievement for the rule of law. Nonetheless, the judicial review of the detainee’s legality enhances the liberty of the prisoned persons hence promoting fair judgment.
References
Duignan, B. (2018, March 21). Rasul v. Bush. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/event/Rasul-v-Bush .
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld: A Historic Challenge to the President. (2008). Publishers Weekly , 255 (20), 44.
Rivkin Jr., D. B., & Casey, L. A. (2004). Supreme Court Rulings in a Time of War. National Review , 56 (9), 34-36.
Rumsfeld, Secretary Of Defense V. Padilla et al.: certiorari to the United States court of appeals for the second circuit. (2009). Supreme Court Cases: The Twenty-first Century (2000 - Present) , 1-4.
