skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: hutchins iii lawrence g hamdania

> Refine results with advanced case search

269 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 29 of 54   next > last >>

In re Guantanamo Detainee cases

Memorandum Opinion denying in part and granting in part respondents' motion to dismiss or for judgment as a matter of law, 31 Jan 2005, District Court for the District of Columbia, United States

Eleven Guantanamo detainees petitioned for habeas corpus, claiming that their continued detention without a right to judicial review was unlawful.

The Court partly agreed with the detainees. While they are not US citizens, they are being held under control of the US government. The fact that Guantanamo Bay is conveniently placed outside US sovereign territory does not change this. Hence, Guantanamo detainees have the right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, a fundamental constitutional right. This right had been violated, and the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) procedures were found unconstitutional. And regarding alleged Taliban fighters, the Court held that they are state forces - regular soldiers or combatants - and should therefore receive prisoner of war-status and -protection under the Third Geneva Convention. Where they had not received such protection without proper reasons, their detention was illegal.

All other claims (based on the Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment and the Alien Tort Claims Act) were rejected, they were inapplicable on the current cases.


Morlock: The Army Prosecutor v. Jeremy Morlock

Judgment, 23 Mar 2011, martial court, Washington, United States


United States of America v. Mufid A. Elfgeeh

Plea Agreement, 17 Dec 2015, District Court for the Western District of New York, United States

The District Court for the Western District of New York has accepted a guilty plea by Mr. Mufid Elfgeeh and subsequently sentenced him to 22.5 years’ imprisonment for his role in encouraging support for IS, recruiting individuals to fight in Syria and providing financial assistance to those attempting to fight for the terrorist group. Mr. Elfgeeh pleaded guilty to part of the original charges laid against him on 17 December 2015 following his arrest in May 2014. The court records demonstrate that Mr. Elfgeeh had been trying to recruit FBI informants and that his activities had been monitored for a significant period of time prior to his arrest. 


Krofan & Andea: Krofan and Andea v. Public Prosecutor

Judgment, 5 Oct 1966, Federal Court of Singapore, Singapore

In May 1961, Malaya proposed the formation of the Federation of Malaya by amalgamating Malaya, Singapore and the British colonies in Borneo (Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei). Whilst Indonesia did not initially oppose the Federation, it did following the outbreak in 1962 of revolt in Brunei by a radical Muslim movement. From 1962 until 1966, a state of armed conflict existed between Indonesia and the Federation of Malaysia (of which Singapore was part since its merger in September 1963), otherwise known as the Indonesia-Malaysian Confrontation.

It was in the context of this armed conflict that on 14 April 1965, Stanislaus Krofan and Andres Andea set foot on Singapore/Malay soil carrying explosives with the intention of setting them off. Upon apprehension, they claimed that they were members of the Indonesian Armed Forces and had been ordered by their superiors to set off the explosives in Singapore. They were convicted by the High Court in Singapore for unlawful possession of explosives in a security area.

On appeal, the Federal Court of Singapore was asked to determine the applicability of the 1949 Geneva Conventions to Singapore at the time of the offence and determine whether Krofan and Andea were entitled to protections as prisoners of war under the Convention. By its judgment of 5 October 1966, the Court assumed that the 1949 Geneva Conventions were applicable and concluded that the appellants were not entitled to protection as prisoners of war. Although members of the Indonesian Armed Forces, they had been caught in civilian clothing acting as saboteurs. 


Pol Pot & Ieng Sary: People’s Revolutionary Tribunal Held in Phnom Penh for the Trial of the Genocide Crime of the Pol Pot - Ieng Sary Clique

Judgement of the Revolutionary People’s Tribunal Held in Phnom Penh From 15 to 19 August 1979, 19 Aug 1979, Revolutionary People’s Tribunal, Cambodia

From 1975 until 1979, the notorious Khmer Rouge ruled the Democratic Republic of Kampuchea, now Cambodia. The accused, Pol Pot and Ieng Sary were Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister under the regime whose conduct resulted in the deaths of some 3 million people, or 40% of the entire population. Supporters of the former regime including soldiers, officials and civil servants, as well as those perceived to be a threat including students, intellectuals, professors, scientists, opposition organisations were brutally exterminated on a massive scale. The entire population of several cities, including the capital Phnom Penh, were forcibly evacuated from their homes, their property was stolen by the state and they were left to die of starvation and disease. Approximately 4 million persons were herded into “commues”, disguised concentration camps in which men, women and children above the age of 10 were put to hard labour. Tens of thousands were brutally tortured by members of the regime, their bodies cut open, subject to electroshock and live surgery. Forced marriages and rape were common place. Children were either put to death in brutal and vicious ways or recruited into armed units to fight. The regime was finally overthrown by Vietnam in January 1979 and the Revolutionary Council established a special tribunal, the Revolutionary People’s Tribunal.

By the present decision, the tribunal convicted Pol Pot and Ieng Sary of genocide and sentenced them to death. Unfortunately, the value of the decision is merely symbolic as the trials were held without the presence of the accused. Pol Pot died in 1998; Ieng Sary is currently on trial before the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia for genocide. 


<< first < prev   page 29 of 54   next > last >>