CIVIL LIBERTIES  
comments_image -

Hamdi: The High Cost of Freedom

After three years held captive in a Navy Brig, U.S. citizen Yaser Esam Hamdi may soon go free. But at what cost?
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Civil Liberties headlines via email.

 
 
 
 

After keeping him locked up in a Navy brig for almost three years, the U.S. government seems to want Yaser Esam Hamdi to just go away. Hamdi, a Louisiana native, was captured in Afghanistan in Novermber 2001. His father says Hamdi, 22, who moved to Saudi Arabia with his family as a child, was doing relief work. U.S. authorities say he was fighting for the Taliban.

It looks like we'll never know exactly what Hamdi was doing there. The U.S. has been reluctant to try Hamdi in either civil or military courts and, for over two years of his confinement, refused him access to a lawyer. The Supreme Court in June said the U.S. citizen couldn't continue to be held without charges. Now, rather than trying him, it appears the administration just wants Hamdi to disappear as quietly as possible. The terms of his release, currently being negotiated, are reported to include demands that he give up his U.S. citizenship and promise not to sue the U.S. government over his detention.

After his capture, Hamdi was brought to Guantanamo Bay. When U.S. officials discovered he was a U.S. citizen, they ended up declaring him an enemy combatant and moving him to a military brig in Norfolk Naval Station in Virginia, where he was held without legal counsel or charges filed against him. For most of the time he was held in solitary confinement, despite a lack of evidence that he presented any special security risk or danger.

In April 2004 his case made its way to the Supreme Court, where it was heard along with that of Jose Padilla, the New York native who was charged with planning to detonate a radioactive “dirty bomb.” The judges declined to rule on Padilla's case, saying the case needed to be filed first in a South Carolina court, but it stated, unequivocally, that Hamdi was long overdue for a l awyer and little bit of justice.

The cases drew the attention of civil liberties advocates, since they were two American citizens being held without the benefit of legal counsel, due process, or even having official charges made against them.

“If the government's view prevails, and it alone decides who is an enemy combatant, then there is nothing to stop it from declaring anyone - you, me or Tom Daschle - an enemy combatant, who can be detained indefinitely without trial,” wrote Columbia University law professor Michael Dorf before the Supreme Court announced the Hamdi decision.

On June 28, 2004 in a 6-3 decision the U.S. Supreme Court decided that both U.S. citizens and foreign nationals can challenge their detention through the U.S. court system. The court ruled that the government did have the authority to arrest and detain Hamdi after his capture, but that his continued detention was invalid for constitutional or statutory reasons and that he had the right to challenge his detention in U.S. courts.

The decision was lauded by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other human rights and civil liberties groups. It was seen as a significant instance of the judicial branch standing up to the executive branch, saying the war on terror did not give the administration complete freedom to do what it pleased.

“What happened with Hamdi was a hallmark of what the Department of Justice and Bush

administration have been doing all along, which is counting on the court to stand back and let the executive branch do whatever it wants,” said Barbara Olshansky, deputy director of litigation for the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, which filed an amicus brief signed by 140 law professors and 19 public interest organizations on Hamdi's behalf.

Now, almost three months after the Supreme Court decision, Hamdi is still in detention.

In late August the government announced that Hamdi's release was imminent and that it was negotiating the details with his attorneys, including the revokation of citizenship and the ban on suing the government. He probably will be sent to Saudi Arabia, where he has spent most of his life. The terms are also likely to include travel restrictions and monitoring by the Saudi government.

submit to reddit

-
Email
Print
Share
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Civil Liberties headlines via email
Alternet Special Coverage - Occupy Wall Street
Advertisement
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading most read content ..
Advertisement
Employers Have Had to Provide Birth Control Coverage Since 2000

By Joan McCarter | Daily Kos

 
 
Who Cares What The Bishops Think? Old Catholic Guys Do.

By Sara Robinson | Alternet

 
 
Coup in Maldives Threatens Ousted President Mohamed Nasheed, a Leading Voice for Island States Threatened by Global Warming

By Amy Goodman | Democracy Now!

 
 
Finally! Trader Joe's Signs on to Fair Food Agreement for Farm Workers

By Tara Lohan | AlterNet

 
 
The Inside Scoop on the Budding Romance Between Walmart and Monsanto

By Maria Tchijov | Food and Water Watch

 
 
North Carolina Considering Amendment That Would Roll Back the Rights of Both Gay and Straight Couples

By Jonathan Weiler | Independent Weekly

 
 
Ellen Degeneres Strikes Back at Anti-Gay Bigots Who Are Boycotting JC Penney Because She's Their New Spokesperson

By Lauren Kelley | AlterNet

 
 
Unbelievable: Man Beats Wife, Judge Orders Him to Take Her Out to Red Lobster and the Bowling Alley

By Melissa McEwan | Shakesville

 
 
Activists Gathering at Apple Stores Around the World Today to Protest Awful Treatment of Chinese Workers

By Lauren Kelley | AlterNet

 
 
Today's Mortgage Settlement: Mega-Banks Got a Slap on the Wrist for Trampling the Law (We Probably Don't Even Know the Half of It)

By Robert Borosage | Campaign for America's Future

 
 
 
Reverend Billy Talen
 
 
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
 
[ page served from web 1 ]