09.01.2015 Views

Government Merits Brief - Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

Government Merits Brief - Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

Government Merits Brief - Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

38<br />

Qaeda and thus does not assist petitioner. The President has<br />

determined that the Geneva Convention does not “apply to<br />

our conflict with al Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere<br />

throughout the world because, among other reasons, al Qaeda<br />

is not a High Contracting Party to [the Convention].” J.A. 35.<br />

The President further determined that, “because [the Convention]<br />

does not apply to our conflict with al Qaeda, al Qaeda<br />

detainees also do not qualify as prisoners of war.” J.A. 36.<br />

The President’s determination represents a classic exercise<br />

of his war powers and his authority over foreign affairs more<br />

generally, see Curtiss-Wright, 299 U.S. at 320; was made in<br />

accordance with Congress’s resolution authorizing the use of<br />

force; and is binding on the courts, see Banco Nacional de<br />

Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398, 410 (1964); Chicago & S. Air<br />

Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 111 (1948).<br />

The decision whether the Geneva Convention applies to a<br />

terrorist network like al Qaeda is akin to the decision whether<br />

a foreign government has sufficient control over an area to<br />

merit recognition or whether a foreign state has ratified a<br />

treaty. In each case, the decision is solely for the Executive.<br />

See Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 635, 657 (1853) (noting<br />

that “it would be impossible for the executive department of<br />

the government to conduct our foreign relations with any<br />

advantage to the country, and fulfill the duties which the Constitution<br />

has imposed upon it, if every court in the country<br />

was authorized to inquire and decide whether the person who<br />

ratified the treaty on behalf of a foreign nation had the power,<br />

by its constitution and laws, to make the engagements into<br />

which he entered”).<br />

Even if some judicial review of the President’s determination<br />

were appropriate, moreover, the standard of review<br />

would surely be extraordinarily deferential to the President.<br />

And, under any standard, the President’s determination is<br />

manifestly correct. Article 2 provides that the Convention is

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!