The result in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld was the decision that enemy combatants had the right to appeal their detention. The court referred to the fact that despite confirming the authorized arrest from Congress, the defendant has the right to challenge this. The Fifth Amendment guarantees a person detained in the state’s territory and accused as an enemy combatant the right to defend his interests in court. In the case of capturing an enemy person, the government does not have the right to hold him for a long time without access to a lawyer.
The defendant insisted that the court restrict his constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment. At the same time, Hamdi demanded access to legal proceedings to ensure protection. However, the government’s statement was limited to explaining that during times of hostilities, the government of the State may restrict enemy combatants’ access to judicial defense and advocacy. However, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision and allowed Hamdi to represent him. Thus, the court held that it is necessary to separate the branches of government in wartime and require more remarkable restraint from the federal courts in issuing warrants.
The constitution guarantees the citizen’s right to a hearing by a neutral person. The accused can prove his innocence and refute the facts of detention for prosecution as an opponent of the combatant. The judge agreed that the executive branch could not label an enemy combatant. Additionally, the executive branch has no right to use this designation as a reason for indefinite detention. In detention, a citizen is allowed to have a lawyer and defend himself in court. The separation of powers allows the court to review and overturn the president’s decisions. Thus, Hamdi had the right to have his detention filed before a neutral person.