Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror - Research Paper Example

? Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror July 13, Habeas Corpus is a right of the Prisoners. The research delves onthe Habeas Corpus and civil liberties. The research centers the suspension of Habeas Corpus and civil liberties in the Guantanamo Bay case. All human beings are entitled to their civil liberties and habeas corpus rights, even during U.S. war on terror campaign. Question 1. The United States Constitution’s Article 1, Section 9. [2] States “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. The provision is based on Former U.S. President Abraham Lincoln’s jailing suspected Confederate sympathizers without relief during the U.S. Civil War, suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus. President Lincoln issued the Habeas Corpus suspension to keep the spies, enemies, aiders, abettors, and deserters during the Civil War (Lincoln, 1989, p. 511). In the case of Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that foreign nationals being held as enemy combatants in the war on terror had the right to challenge their incarceration at Guantanamo Bay. Similarly, the Supreme Court decided in the Boumediene v. Bush (2008) case that the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 did not implement any alternative to the habeas corpus provision of the U.S. Constitution (Vile, 2010, p. 48). Further, U.S. Criminal law’s cause and prejudice rule reiterates the doctrine that the prisoners can petition, through a representative or by himself, the courts for a federal writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the prisoners’ constitutional rights were overlooked or abused, prejudicing the prisoner(Garner, 2009, p. 279). Habeas corpus is related to the protection of the other civil liberties. Black’s law dictionary defines civil liberty as “Freedom from undue government interference or restraint.” The civil liberties include freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and other liberties mentioned in the U.S. Constitutions’ Bill of Rights section. Further, the prior U.S. civil liberties were provided by the 1648 Lawes and Libertyes of Massachusetts. Likewise, the civil liberties were enshrined in the 1791 Bill of Rights provisions. In addition, the civil liberties were included in England’s 1216 Magna Carta Law. The Civil liberties were also emphasized in England’s 1628 the Petition of Rights and the 1689 Bill of Rights Law. Just like the civil liberties, the affected persons and groups are granted the right to ask the courts to produce the body of the detained prisoners, including those incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay (Garner 2009, p.308). Further, Black’s law dictionary states that the U.S. Bill of Rights is based Habeas Corpus Act [31 Car. 2, 1679] (Garner 2009, 217). Question 2.During the 18th Century, England assigned governors to oversee the statehood of each United States’ historic colonies. England’s policy of promoting the colonies into states was incorporated in the Article 5 of the 1787 Ordinance. The State Constitution’s Article 2’s civil liberties sections included a habeas corpus provision protecting the citizens from government abuses (Keene, 2004, p.74). Further, the United States President authorized the suspension of the Write of Habeas Corpus in 1863, 1866, and 1857. The United States Congress approved the United States president’s suspension during the same time periods. However, there was no general act that would suspend the Writ indicated in the Revised Statutes. During the 17th Century, Britain allowed its English subjects the right to Habeas Corpus. Only England’s Court of the King’s Bench had the power to execute a Writ of Habeas Corpus, not the court judge. The courts implemented the Habeas Corpus Act of Charles II and revised the defects found in England’s 1869 Bill of Rights (Stimson, 2004, p.166). In terms of history, the September 11, 2001 twin towers attack can be classified as an invasion on United States territory. The consequently, Bush can be right in complying with the U.S. Constitution’s Section 9 Habeas Corpus provision stating “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it (Anastaplo, 2006, p. 232). Applying logic, the suspension of the habeas corpus law will enhance the success of the Bush administrations’ War on Terror policy. Question 3. Furthermore, United States President Abraham Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus in April 1861. Merryman was arrested for aiding in the destruction of the railroad bridges. In May, 1861, U.S. Chief Justice Taney decided that Merryman should be freed from arbitrary and illegal denial of civil liberty (Hall, 2005, p.177). The Lincoln Style Habeas Corpus curtailment shows that the Supreme Court can step in and invalidate the current United States president’s wrong act. In the Guantanamo Bay case, the United States considered combatants held in Guantanamo Bay had not right to Habeas Corpus. The Military authorities transferred the prisoners from Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay to avoid being under the jurisdiction of the United States laws, specifically the Habeas Corpus provisions. The military’s Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT) gave the prisoners limited rights. The prisoners did not have the right to counsel, the right to hear the charges, and the hearsay evidence was admitted in the hearing of the charges (Emanuel, 2008, p. 124). The Guantanamo Bay version shows that Supreme Court can overpower the U.S. President’s military strategy of suspending Habeas Corpus, preventing future presidents from falling into the same trap. Question 4. In terms of relevance, the United States President Bush characterizes the habeas corpus issue hinders the contemporary U.S. situation during the war on terror. If any U.S. citizen will ask for the body of a Guantanamo Bay prisoner of war, the Bush government must deliver the body of the detained prisoner from Cuba to any U.S. court. Likewise, any citizen of a Muslim country can use the habeas corpus concept to request the Muslim country’s courts to produce the body of the Guantanamo Bay in the Muslim country’s courts. In terms of relevance of the Habeas Corpus on the U.S. President Bush’s war on terror’s Guantanamo Bay situation, President Bush implements the Utilitarianism concept. The Utilitarianism concept states that one must exercise all acts or inactions to ensure the greater good benefits the greater majority. Withholding the habeas corpus rights of the prisoners cropped up from the September 11, 2001 attack. The innocent victims of New York’s twin towers were not afforded their rights to defend themselves in a court of law. The Muslim extremist group, Al Qaeda, summarily executed the innocent victims of the New York were summarily killed by the without giving them their day in court. In response, the consequent war on terror acts of U.S. President Bush included refusing to grant the civil liberties and habeas corpus rights of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners of war. Question 5. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the U.S. President’s interpretation of the right of habeas corpus with respect to "enemy combatants" or "illegal combatants". (i.e., the views of the five justices making up the majority in Boumediene v. Bush as well as the views of the four dissenting justices). In the Boumediene vs. Bush case [553 US 723 (2008)], The court held that the statutory plan for reviewing the incarceration of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners was an lacking alternative for Habeas Corpus. The prisoners were entitled to apply for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, even though they were detained outside the United States’ borders. The Supreme Court insisted that since the Guantanamo Bay detention facility was under the full control of the United States government, the prisoners are entitled to apply for Habeas Corpus (Zellick, 2011, p. 217). The five concurring opinions insisted the Habeas Corpus law is a liberty that cannot be suspended because the suspension of the Habeas Corpus law does not apply to the Guantanamo Bay prisoners, using the Habeas Corpus At of 1679, Article 1, Section 9 of U.S. Constitution, and the Magna Carta and Petition of Rights of 1627. On the other hand, the four dissenters indicate the War or Terror qualifies U.S. President’s dispatch to find, contain, and future September 11, 2001 invasions of the United States (Vile, Essential Supreme Court Decisions, 2010, p. 100). Question 6. The role of the U.S. President, other government leaders, academe and media is to join hands to ensure the implementing the habeas corpus act, without exclusion. The military must grant the prisoners’ civil rights. The civil rights include the Habeas Corpus right. The President cannot violation the U.S. Constitution, especially the Habeas Corpus provisions. In term of the role of the United States Congress to establish the criteria for suspending the Habeas Corpus doctrine, the congress must revise the current habeas corpus law. The Congress must incorporate higher punishment to anyone who violates the Habeas Corpus rights of the prisoners. The increasing of the penalty will discourage anyone, including the U.S. president, from violating the Habeas Corpus Rights. Further, In terms of the Supreme Court plays a vital role in protecting the people’s civil liberties. The Supreme Court can repeal the United States President’s suspension of the Habeas Corpus. The Supreme Court can cancel any policy that violates the U.S. Constitution. The people can ask the Supreme Court to grant the reinstallation of their Habeas Corpus rights. There are some judicial philosophy concepts that will enhance the Supreme Court’s habeas corpus decisions. The Supreme Court grants the people their right to freedom of expression and freedom from unauthorized incarceration. The Supreme Court must continue guarding against the abuses of the people. The Judicial philosophy of the Supreme Court is justice. Everyone must be given one’s day in court. In terms of personal philosophy, there must be a balance between national security and the people’s civil liberties, including implementation of the Habeas Corpus provisions, without exception. The prisoners of Guantanamo Bay should be given their civil liberties. the Supreme Court has spoken in the case of Boumediene vs. Bush case [553 US 723 (2008)] that the Guantanamo Bay prisoners are entitled to Habeas Corpus and other civil liberties, since the detention facility is run by the United States government. The Supreme Court is right in stepping in and repealing the suspension of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners. Summarizing the above analysis, Habeas Corpus is a right of the Prisoners. The U.S. Constitution guarantees the Habeas Corpus and civil liberties, regardless of nationality. The suspension of Habeas Corpus and civil liberties in the Guantanamo Bay case was controversially resolved in favor of the implementation of Habeas Corpus and civil liberties. Evidently, all human beings, without regard of citizenship, are entitled to their civil liberties and habeas corpus rights, especially the Guantanamo prisoners under the control of the U.S. government. REFERENCES: Anastaplo, G. (2006). Reflections on Constitutional Law. Kentucky: University of Kentucky Press. Emanuel, S. (2008). Constitutional Law. Aspen: Aspen Press. Garner, B. (2009). Black's Law Dictionary. New York: Thompson Press. Hall, K. (2005). The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Keene, E. (2004). Beyond the Anarchical Society. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lincoln, A. (1989). Speeches and Writings 1859-1865. New York: Library of America Press. Stimson, F. (2004). The Law of the Federal and State Constitutions of the United States. New York: The Lawbook Exchange. Vile, J. (2010). A Companion to the United States Constitution and Its Amendments. New York: ABC-Clio Press. Vile, J. (2010). Essential Supreme Court Decisions. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Press. Zellick, A. (2011). The Law of Habeas Corpus. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More