Hamdi et al. c. RumsfeldHamdi et al. v Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, et al. could prove the failure of the Bush administration's legal defense of abuses at Guantanamo Bay. In this case, four British citizens are suing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld along with a host of Army and Air Force generals and political apparatchiks for allegedly authorizing the use of torture in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay . The four men were captured in Afghanistan, either by the Americans or their ally, the Northern Alliance, and transported to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where they were held for more than two years. Their status was not that of enemy combatants, which guaranteed them certain protections under the Geneva Convention, but rather that of illegal combatants. They were detained without being charged with a crime, without legal representation, and never even brought before a military judge until Rasul v. Bush established their Habeas Corpus rights. They were released in March 2004 without being charged. Their complaint accused Rumsfeld et al. of kidnapping and torture. They were allegedly beaten with rifle butts, punched and kicked, “briefly chained” in cramped and painful positions and threatened by unmuzzled dogs. Their cells were cold and exposed to the elements, little better than cages, and they were denied medical care. Plaintiffs contend that this was the result of a deliberate and predictable action taken by Defendant Rumsfeld to flout or circumvent the United States Constitution, federal law, United States treaty obligations, and long-established norms of the customary international law. This action was taken as part of an ill-conceived and illegal attempt to use torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading acts to coerce non-existent information...... middle of paper ... . Hamdi's allegations are correct. And the jurisdictional argument was rejected by the Supreme Court in Rasul v. Rumsfeld. The last part needed for strong action against Rumsfeld et al. This would involve the Supreme Court determining the conditions under which they could be deemed liable to prosecution under the Alien Tort Statute. This is the most ambiguous piece of the case. The issues of proof and jurisdiction have already been addressed; the third and final element will make or break Hamdi's case. I believe there are actionable causes in this matter under the Alien Tort Statute. A close look at the founders provides evidence of a liberal ("expansive" is the pejorative term used by Scalia) interpretation of the statute. With these admissible causes as the cornerstone of the case, Rumsfled et al. will have to present a spirited defense or risk losing an embarrassing and costly trial.