Talk:Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

U.S. Supreme Court cases High‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

There is still a lot more information to include after my rather summary expansion of today's decision. For one thing, the procedural history needs to be laid out...I may take care of it later if no one else does. Postdlf 20:22, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Oral Argument in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld" under References isn't properly linked. It seems this is because Wikipedia isn't picking up on the rtsp protocol. Jareha 14:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assertion that Hamdi was doing relief work is presented as fact. The article has a few such neutrality issues. Article should be rewritten so it does not appear to be biased toward Hamdi's position. Statement should say something like "Hamdi was detained by Afghan Forces and held by American forces despite his father's claims that he had been merely doing relief work." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelaready (talk • contribs) 00:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Court Opinions[edit]

The previous version stated that Congress can supend habeas corpus only "in times of 'insurrection' or 'rebellion'". Article I of the Constitution says that Congress shall not suspend the writ of habeas corpus except in cases of "rebellion" or "invasion". I changed to wording to reflect this.

Reference Problem[edit]

As of this writing, article only has a single inline citation. I will be working over the next few days to improve the situation. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 18:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added most of the major documents from the case and started adding citations in the background section. There's still a lot of work to be done though! The lead paragraph needs major expansion, the section explaining the courts opinion needs to be split up into subsections, and an extensive section about responses to the case needs to be written. I think it'd be great if we could get this article up to GA quality! -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 03:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]