HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD (548 U.S.

557) – 2006 The court did not explicitly rule on the power of the President
to convene military commissions. They noted that even if he
Facts: Petitioner Salim Hamdan, a citizen of Yemen, was the
possessed such power, such tribunals would either have to be
bodyguard and chauffer of Osama Bin Laden. He was captured by
sanctioned by the laws of war (under the Uniform Code of Military
militia forces during the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and turned
Justice) or authorized by statute. Clearly, there is no law expanding
over to the U.S. In 2002, he was sent to Guantanamo Bay, an
the war powers of the president (Art. 21 of the Authorization for Use
American detention camp in Cuba.
of Military Force). Instead, the AUMF at most acknowledges the
In 2004, Hamdan was charged with conspiracy to commit President’s authority to convene military commissions only where
terrorism and the Bush administration made arrangements to try him justified by the exigencies of war, but still operating within the laws of
before a military commission. Petitioner’s counsel filed for a writ of war.
habeas corpus challenging the constitutionality of the military
Because the military commission does not meet the
commission and saying that it lacked the protections required under
requirements of the Uniform Code or of the Geneva Convention, it
the Geneva Convention and the US Uniform Code of Military Justice.
violates the laws of war and thus cannot be used to try Hamdan. The
A review of the case was undertaken by the Combatant Status Review
Uniform Code and the Geneva Conventions provide more protections
Tribunal which determined that he was eligible for detention by the
than the military commissions provide. The court found several
U.S. as an enemy combatant or person of interest.
deviations such as the prohibition of the defense to view evidence, the
Defendants in this case include U.S. officials responsible for prohibition for the defense counsel to discuss the evidence with his
Hamdan’s detention. Rumsfeld is the Secretary of Defense. client, and the probative value given to hearsay, unsworn testimony,
and statements gathered through torture. The procedures in question
The District Court of Columbia granted the petition and found before the court violated “at the very least” Article 3 of the Geneva
that the U.S. could not hold a military commission unless it was first Conventions.
shown that the detainee was a P.O.W. This was reversed by the US
CA for the District of Columbia who ruled that military commissions
are legitimate forums to try enemy combatants as such power is
granted by Congress. As to the Geneva Convention, the court ruled
that the same was between states and it did not confer individual
rights and remedies. Granting, the court said, that the conventions
confer individual rights, the same could not be enforced against the
U.S. as the war against Al Qaeda was not between two states.

Ruling: The court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and
found that Pres. Bush could not establish the war crimes tribunals as
they were illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva
Conventions.