We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
Even in Wartime, Rights Are Needful--Comments on Hamdi and Hamdan.
- Authors
Fort Fu-Te Liao
- Abstract
This essay, through an analysis of two judgments, Hamdi and Hamdan, explores rights under conditions of armed conflicts. It agrees with the conclusions of these two judgments, but offers different arguments. This essay argues that in Hamdi it is better for the Supreme Court to say, since the Congress neither authorized administrative detention nor suspended the writ of habeas corpus, personal liberty should be guaranteed. It also argues that in Hamdan, the war between the US and Afghanistan should be regarded as an international armed conflict. Hamdan, according to the Third Geneva Convention, should be therefore treated as a prisoner of war and tried by a military or civil court. This essay considers that due to the insistence of several judges, and reference to the Geneva Convention, rights were protected.
- Subjects
UNITED States; HAMDI v. Rumsfeld (Supreme Court case); HAMDAN v. Rumsfeld (Supreme Court case); HABEAS corpus; GENEVA Conventions (1949); PRISONERS of war; UNITED States. Supreme Court
- Publication
EurAmerica, 2009, Vol 39, Issue 4, p671
- ISSN
1021-3058
- Publication type
Article