|
''Hamdan v. Rumsfeld'', 548 U.S. 557 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949."〔(Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Supreme Court Syllabus ), pg. 4., point 4.〕 Specifically, the ruling says that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was violated. The case considers whether the United States Congress may pass legislation preventing the Supreme Court from hearing the case of an accused combatant before his military commission takes place, whether the special military commissions that had been set up violated federal law (including the Uniform Code of Military Justice and treaty obligations), and whether courts can enforce the articles of the 1949 Geneva Convention.〔(''Hamdan v. Rumsfeld'' ), ''Duke Law's Supreme Court Online'', 2005.〕 An unusual aspect of the case was an amicus brief filed by Senators Jon Kyl and Lindsey Graham, which presented an "extensive colloquy" added to the Congressional record as evidence that "Congress was aware" that the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 would strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear cases brought by the Guantanamo detainees. Because these statements were not included in the December 21 debate at the time, Emily Bazelon of ''Slate'' magazine has argued their brief was an attempt to mislead the court.〔("Invisible Men: Did Lindsey Graham and Jon Kyl mislead the Supreme Court?" ), by Emily Bazelon, ''Slate'', March 27, 2006.〕 On June 29, 2006, the Court issued a 5–3 decision holding that it had jurisdiction, that the administration did not have authority to set up these particular military commissions without congressional authorization, because they did not comply with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention (which the court found to be incorporated into the Uniform Code of Military Justice).〔"(In Loss for Bush, Supreme Court Blocks War-Crimes Trials at Guantanamo )", Associated Press, as reported by ''The New York Times'', June 29, 2006〕 ==Background== (詳細はSalim Ahmed Hamdan, a citizen of Yemen who worked as a bodyguard and chauffeur for Osama bin Laden. Hamdan had formerly worked in Afghanistan on an agricultural project that Bin Laden had developed. Hamdan was captured by militia forces during the invasion of Afghanistan in the fall of 2001 and turned over to the United States. In 2002, he was sent by the US to its new Guantanamo Bay detention camp at its Naval Base in Cuba. In July 2004, Hamdan was charged with conspiracy to commit terrorism,〔(Charge Sheets for Salim Ahmed Hamdan ), United States Department of Defense〕 and the Bush administration made arrangements to try him before a military commission, established by the Department of Defense under Military Commission Order No. 1 of March 21, 2002. He was assigned a defense counsel, LCDR Charles D. Swift from the Navy JAG, who with a legal team filed a petition for Hamdan in US District Court for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the constitutionality of the military commission, and saying that it lacked the protections required under the Geneva Conventions and United States Uniform Code of Military Justice. Following the United States Supreme Court ruling in ''Hamdi v. Rumsfeld'' (2004), which established that detainees had the right of ''habeas corpus'' to challenge their detention, Hamdan was granted a review before the Combatant Status Review Tribunal. It determined that he was eligible for detention by the United States as an enemy combatant or person of interest.〔 The defendants in this case included many United States government officials allegedly responsible for Hamdan's detention; the short name of the case includes only the first-named defendant, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Hamdan v. Rumsfeld」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|