Editing Unlawful combatant (section)

==== Legal challenges ====
There have been a number of legal challenges made on behalf of the detainees held in Guantanamo Bay detention camp and in other places. These include:
* On 30 July 2002, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in Rasul v. Bush, that it did not have jurisdiction because Guantanamo Bay Naval Base is not a [[United States territory#Dependent areas of the United States|sovereign territory]] of the United States. This decision was appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the decision, (along with a related case in March 2003 – see [[Al-Odah v. United States]]). ''Rasul v. Bush'' was appealed to the United States Supreme Court on 2 September 2003.
* On 10 November 2003, the United States Supreme Court announced that it would decide on appeals by Afghan war detainees who challenge their continued incarceration at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base as being unlawful, (See [[Rasul v. Bush]]).
* On 10 January 2004, 175 members of both [[United Kingdom Parliament|houses of Parliament in the UK]] filed an ''[[amicus curiae|amici curiae]]'' brief to support the detainees' access to US jurisdiction.
* On 28 June 2004, the Supreme Court ruled in ''Rasul v. Bush'' that detainees in Guantanamo Bay Naval Base could turn to U.S. courts to challenge their confinement, but can also be held without charges or trial.
* On 7 July 2004, In response to the Supreme Court ruling, the Pentagon announced that cases would be reviewed by military tribunals, in compliance with Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3867067.stm Q&A: US Supreme Court Guantanamo ruling], BBC 8 July 2004</ref><ref name=DOD-News>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/news/2005/01/sec-050119-dod01.htm DoD News: Combatant Status Review Tribunals Update] No. 057-05, 19 January 2005</ref>
* On 8 November 2004, a federal court halted the proceeding of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, 34, of Yemen. Hamdan was to be the first Guantanamo detainee tried before a military commission. Judge [[James Robertson (Judge)|James Robertson]] of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in ''Hamdan v. Rumsfeld''<ref>''Hamdan v. Rumsfeld'' [http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/gazette/2004/11/ruling-on-lawfulness-of-Guantanamo.php summary], [http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/04-1519.pdf full text (PDF File)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050401133200/http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/04-1519.pdf |date=1 April 2005 }} – U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, presiding Judge James Robertson</ref> that no competent tribunal had found that Hamdan was not a prisoner of war under the Geneva Conventions.
* By 29 March 2005, all detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base had received hearings before Combatant Status Review Tribunals. The hearings resulted in the release of 38 detainees, and confirmed the ''enemy combatant'' status of 520 detainees.<ref name=DOD-News/> [[Reuters]] reported on 15 June 2005 only four detainees had been charged and that Joseph Margulies, one of the lawyers for the detainees said "The (reviews) are a sham ... They mock this nation's commitment to due process, and it is past time for this mockery to end".<ref>[http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=65514&d=16&m=6&y=2005&pix=world.jpg&category=World Guantanamo inmates can be held 'in perpetuity'- US], Arab News, 16 June 2005. ([[Reuters]] report 15 June 2005)</ref>

[[Yaser Hamdi]] was captured in [[Afghanistan]] in November 2001. He was taken to Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, but was transferred to jails in Virginia and South Carolina after it became known that he was a U.S. citizen. On 23 September 2004, the United States Justice Department agreed to release Hamdi to [[Saudi Arabia]], where he is also a citizen, on the condition that he gave up his U.S. citizenship. The deal also bars Hamdi from visiting certain countries and to inform Saudi officials if he plans to leave the kingdom. He was a party to a Supreme Court decision ''[[Hamdi v. Rumsfeld]]'' which issued a decision on 28 June 2004, repudiating the U.S. government's unilateral assertion of executive authority to suspend the constitutional protections of individual liberty of a U.S. citizen. The Court recognized the power of the government to detain unlawful combatants, but ruled that detainees must have the ability to challenge their detention before an impartial judge. Though no single opinion of the Court commanded a majority, eight of the nine justices of the Court agreed that the [[Executive Branch]] does not have the power to hold indefinitely a U.S. citizen without basic due process protections enforceable through judicial review.

On 8 May 2002, [[José Padilla (prisoner)|José Padilla]], also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir, was arrested by [[FBI]] agents at [[Chicago]]'s [[O'Hare International Airport]] and held as material witness on the warrant issued in [[New York (state)]] about the 2001 9/11 attacks. On 9 June 2002 President Bush issued an order to Secretary Rumsfeld to detain Padilla as an "enemy combatant". The order justified the detention by leaning on the AUMF which authorized the President to "use all necessary force against those nations, organizations, or ''persons''" and in the opinion of the administration a U.S. citizen can be an enemy combatant (this was decided by the United States Supreme Court in the case of ''Ex parte Quirin'').<ref>[http://www.law.syr.edu/academics/centers/insct/Military%20Force%20-%20Padilla.asp Authorization for Use of Military Force: Padilla v. Bush: Jose Padilla under the Joint Resolution] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090203134623/http://www.law.syr.edu/academics/centers/insct/Military%20Force%20-%20Padilla.asp |date=3 February 2009 }} The Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce, issued by the [[Syracuse University College of Law]]</ref> Padilla is being detained in [[Miami]] and is accused of [[providing material support for terrorism]].
* The 13 November 2001, Military Order, mentioned above, exempts U.S. citizens from trial by military tribunals to determine if they are unlawful combatants, which indicates that Padilla and ''Yaser Hamdi'' would end up in the civilian criminal justice system, as happened with [[John Walker Lindh]].
* On 18 December 2003, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals declared that the Bush Administration lacked the authority to detain a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil as an "illegal enemy combatant" without clear congressional authorization (per {{usc|18|4001}}(a)); it consequently ordered the government to release Padilla from military custody within thirty days.<ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1218-10.htm Appeals Court Says Bush Can't Hold U.S. Citizen] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140122053133/http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1218-10.htm |date=22 January 2014 }} Published on Thursday, 18 December 2003 by [[Reuters]]</ref> But agreed that he could be held until an appeal was heard.
* On 20 February 2004, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the government's appeal.
* The Supreme Court heard the case, ''[[Rumsfeld v. Padilla]]'', in April 2004, but on 28 June it was thrown out on a technicality. The court declared that New York State, where the case was originally filed, was an improper venue and that the case should have been filed in South Carolina, where Padilla was being held.
* On 28 February 2005, in [[Spartanburg]], [[South Carolina]], U.S. District Judge [[Henry Floyd (judge)|Henry Floyd]] ordered the Bush administration to either charge Padilla or release him.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/01/politics/01terror.html?ex=1111899600&en=4bade73e4d6a651f&ei=5070 Judge Says Terror Suspect Can't Be Held as an Enemy Combatant] The [[New York Times]] 1 March 2005</ref> He relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in the parallel enemy combatant case of Yaser Hamdi (''Hamdi v. Rumsfeld''), in which the majority decision declared a "state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens".
* On 19 July 2005, in [[Richmond, Virginia]], the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals began hearing the government's appeal of the lower court (the District of South Carolina, at Charleston) ruling by Henry F. Floyd, District Judge, (CA-04-2221-26AJ). Their ruling, decided 9 September 2005, was that "the President does possess such authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution enacted by Congress in the wake of the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is reversed".<ref>José Padilla Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals 19 July, 9 September 2005</ref>
* In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (29 June 2006) the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule on the subject of unlawful combatant status but did reaffirm that the U.S. is bound by the Geneva Conventions. Most notably it said that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, regarding the treatment of detainees, applies to all prisoners in the War on Terror.