Background: The case of (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld), it dealt with the Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment and the AUMF Resolution. The Fifth Amendment states, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public.” The Fifth Amendment also insures the due process clause for all American citizens which was also an issue in this case. The Fourteenth Amendment deals with equality with citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws. Congress passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Forces (AUMF) Resolution, which gave the President the power to use appropriate force against any country, organization, or persons that he determined aided in the attacks of 9/11. The President then sent troops to Afghanistan to combat Al Queda and the Taliban. Once the troops were over in Afghanistan the U.S. Government classified an American citizen, Yaser Esam Hamdi, as an enemy combatant and had him captured. He was captured because there was an alleged claimed that Hamdi took up arms with the Taliban against the U.S. forces. The facts of the reasoning behind his capture were presented by a commander in the U.S. military.…show more content… Six voted for and three against.
Reason: Under the Fifth Amendment the due process clause, it guarantees an American citizen the right to challenge the factual reasons of why they’re being detained. With the absence of any form of suitable review was seen as violating constitutional rights. In the concurrence Justice Souter stated that the federal courts had the power to hear Hamdi’s case, which would satisfy the due process clause. In the dissent Justice Scalia stated that since the Government did not suspend the writ of habeas corpus then under the Fifth Amendment they were to release Hamdi because of due