Did the government Violate Hamdi

Save this page for later by
adding it to your bookmarks
Press Ctrl+D (Windows)
or Cmd+D (Mac OS)
Text
Sources

Was Hamdi’s right to a fair hearing violated by the government, by holding him on the account of executive, declaring him an enemy combatant who was fighting against the United States? An enemy combatant is a person who directly engages with hostilities in favor of the enemy in an armed conflict either lawfully or unlawfully.

Yaser Hamdi was arrested by the US forces in Afghanistan back in 2001. He was accused of direct fighting for the Taliban and therefore declared an enemy combatant. He was detained in Guantanamo bay and later a military prison where he was held indefinitely. His father petitioned on his behalf with the intention of making the detention of his son declared unconstitutional.

Despite the fact that congress authorized hamdi’s detention, the Fifth Amendment grants US citizens held as enemy combatant the right to receive a fair hearing in front of a neutral decision maker. Therefore the government violated Hamdi’s right to a fair trial through the indefinite detention.

Did the government action to detain Yaser Hamdi indefinitely right and necessary? Under the federal government war powers of maintaining national security, the power given to the president under the constitution includes declaring a person an enemy combatant and therefore face can face detention.

The fact that Hamdi was arrested in a war zone supporting American enemies. In addition to the fact that he was declared an enemy combatant gives the federal government and the president the right to detain him, regardless of his US citizenship.

In detaining Hamdi the president acted right in accordance with the powers granted to him. Under Hamdi’s circumstance, he received the due process according to his circumstance. In conclusion, the government decision to detain Yaser Hamdi is right in accordance with the constitution as he was declared an enemy combatant.

According to Sajo, A. (1999), a limited government is important in preserving personal liberty and to protect human rights and freedoms as it protects the properties of its citizens enabling people to have more control over their lives, on the other hand, a non-limited government grants absolute power over its citizens this means that there is loss of liberty as the government makes decision on behalf of its citizens.

In my attempt of drafting a constitution of a new country, placing a limitation on the government to protect individual human right will be important; the government will depend on the constitution for operation. The new constitution would state that basic human rights must be preserved and protected government regardless of nationality, race or religious affiliations. the major role of the government according to this constitution will be to protect human rights of all people citizens or non-citizens. With this law in place citizens of the new state will enjoy maximum human rights protection by the constitution and the government itself this means that as much as the government will be having other roles to perform, protection of human rights will be the major role of government. Any human being convicted under the law of the land for any crime must receive the maximum enjoyment of human rights unless stated otherwise by a court of law. This law will ensure that suspects and convicts do not suffer under the government for the crimes they committed (Kiernan, J. P. 2010).

According to,(Kiernan, J. P. 2010). One of the major reasons why individual human rights are violated is due to lack of information concerning their human rights. When drafting the constitution I will ensure that the government must extensively teach and explain until understanding individual human rights and freedoms to all its citizens.  With this law in place, every citizen will be well conversant with his or her individual rights and freedoms and will stand to defend them every time his or her right is violated. The constitution will state that it’s the role of the government to civil educate its citizens either directly or indirectly through human rights agencies.

Another hindrance to the protection of individual human rights is the lack of strong and independent judicial systems free from government interference. The constitution will provide a strong independent and supreme judicial system that will give ruling even against the government. Its independence will ensure that the government will not in any way interfere with its proceedings and the supreme nature of the judicial system means that the system will be superior to all other government bodies, With an independent and supreme judicial systems citizens with petitions against the government in terms of human rights will receive fair hearing and protection by the law. (Powell,& Staton 2009).

Did you like this sample?
  1. Sajo, A. (1999). Limiting government: an introduction to constitutionalism. Central European University Press.
  2. Kiernan, J. P. (2010). DEFENDING HUMAN RIGHTS. Américas, 62(3), 50-55.
  3. Powell, E. J., & Staton, J. K. (2009). Domestic judicial institutions and human rights treaty violation. International Studies Quarterly, 53(1), 149-174.
Find more samples:
Related topics
More samples
Related Essays