Rumsfeld V. Padilla Case Study

1540 Words7 Pages
Rumsfeld v. Padilla Padilla, an America citizen, was arrested at the airport after a trip to Pakistan. He was initially detained as a material witness against an Al Qaeda terrorist cell. He was later declared an enemy combatant because of his alleged involvement in terrorist activities. He was accused of plotting to explode a radioactive bomb in the US. This declaration as an enemy combatant gave the Department of Defense authority to hold him indefinitely. Padilla’s attorney filed a habeas corpus petition on his behalf. The government’s argument was that the detention of military combatants is indefinite because it is difficult to decide when the war is over. Padilla’s attorney argued that the detention was a violation of the constitution. The US district court found that the Department of Defense had the authority to hold Padilla indefinitely. It found that Padilla’s attorney had a standing to file the petition despite the fact that Padilla had been transferred to a military rig in South Carolina. It also found that the Department of Defense under the authorisation of congress authorisation of use of military force had the authority to detain Padilla as an enemy combatant. The court rejected Padilla’s…show more content…
He also argued that the president’s power as the Commander in Chief did not allow him to detain American citizens as military combatants. In addition, the congressional authorisation was not intended to allow the detention of American citizens. The detention of American citizens had been expressly forbidden when the President was authorised to use necessary and appropriate measures in the war against terror. His other argument was that the government controlled the location of his detention and the choice to transfer him should not affect his ability to file a petition for habeas corpus in New

More about Rumsfeld V. Padilla Case Study

Open Document