Page 35 - Freedom in the world_Neat

questioning without access to a lawyer until December 2003. The government maintained
the right to detain him indefinitely as an enemy combatant and filed no charges against
him. In June 2002 Hamdi's family filed a habeas corpus petition and asked a federal judge
to order the government to charge Hamdi or release him.
In the June 2004 ruling Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court ordered the government to
provide Hamdi with access to counsel and the opportunity to review and rebut the
evidence against him. However, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the court, also
said that the rights of the accused must be balanced against the security interests of the
nation as a whole. Requiring an ordinary criminal trial for Hamdi would impede the
government's ability to maintain national security, while denying him the right to challenge
his classification as an enemy combatant would grant him too little protection. O'Conner
argued that Hamdi must have his case heard by an impartial, properly constituted tribunal,
but that the tribunal could be run without some of the normal procedural protections
afforded in a criminal court, such as a ban on hearsay evidence, and with the burden of
proof on the defendant rather than the government.
In October 2004, the government announced that it had agreed to release Hamdi on the
condition that he renounce his U.S. citizenship and move to Saudi Arabia, where the Saudi
government would monitor his movements. (He had been born in the United States to
Saudi parents, and the family had moved to Saudi Arabia when he was a child.) Hamdi also
relinquished his right to sue the government over his detention.
Although Hamdi pertained specifically to citizen-detainees, the case had significant
implications for the treatment of all alleged enemy combatants, including foreign nationals.
Based on the holdings of Hamdi and Rasul, the U.S. government has conceded the right of
all detainees to consult with legal counsel and to challenge their status as enemy
combatants before impartial tribunals.
Another American citizen captured in Afghanistan, John Walker Lindh, was treated
differently. Because he was immediately identified as an American, Lindh was detained at a
Marine Corps base in Afghanistan and questioned about his affiliations with the Taliban
and al-Qaeda. He signed a confession, but later alleged that his request for an attorney
had been denied and that he had been coerced into waiving his right to remain silent.
Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that Lindh would be tried in the United States
on charges of conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy to commit terrorism. Because
his confession would likely be excluded under U.S. law as the result of coercion, the
government offered Lindh a plea bargain in return for his cooperation. He is currently
serving a 20-year federal prison sentence.
Jose Padilla, an American citizen accused of being a terrorist, was arrested at a Chicago
airport in May 2002 and held on a material witness warrant in connection with 9/11.
Padilla challenged the warrant, and on June 9, 2002--two days before a judge was
scheduled to rule on his challenge--President Bush ordered Defense Secretary Rumsfeld to
detain him as an enemy combatant. The government alleged that Padilla had intelligence
about future attacks on the United States and posed a continuing threat to national
security. He was moved to a South Carolina military prison, where his attorney and family
were denied access to him.
Padilla's attorney filed a habeas corpus petition naming Rumsfeld as the respondent. On
December 18, 2003, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City found the
habeas petition valid and ruled that "the President lacked inherent constitutional authority
as Commander-in-Chief to detain American citizens on American soil outside a zone of

Page 35 of 168