US Government the Primary Purpose of the Habeas Corpus - Essay Example

Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror Introduction The aim of this essay is to draw attention to the writ of Habeas Corpus during the period of the war on terror. The paper shows how the administration of Bush kept all the detained prisoners in GITMO and shows how the Bush’s administration did not consider their civil liberties because they were detained in a place that is beyond the US constitution jurisdiction. The United States, in the 9/11 aftermath has changed completely (Hafetz, 2011). The war on terror in the United States seems to be extremely vital than the citizens who need much protection. After the World trade center attacks on twin towers together with the Pentagon, the administration of Bush, including all the intensity this event was thought to warrant. The responses comprised of all the illegal surveillance, torture, putting suspects in jails without any trial or the right of Habeas Corpus, among others (Hafetz, 2011). All those who were tortured included both US citizens and noncitizens. It is acknowledged that the war on terror is totally a new kind of war, which requires novel responses. Still, people would seek to understand exactly what the meaning of these new responses is and how they should be, how they should be applied and what implications they cause of civil liberty. Thesis Statement The Supreme Court of United States should have ensured the rights of Habeas Corpus all the facilities of GITMO should have burned. Historical evolution of habeas corpus In general, Habeas Corpus refers to the rights of a detainee to the judicial determination of whether a certain detainee is legally detained. Most probably, Habeas Corpus is the fundamental guarantee of individual liberty. By allowing an independent judge to determine the grounds under which a certain detainee is detained and make an order of releasing that detainee if the grounds are unlawful, then Habeas Corpus seems to be the key to protect people from arbitrary arrest or detention, torture, and extraordinary killings (Gregory, 2013). A number of historical struggles, which limited the monarch’s power, characterized Habeas Corpus evolution. Particularly, the origin of Habeas Corpus traces back to the implementation of the central court system of England after the Norman Conquest in the 1066. The aim of Habeas Corpus was to accomplish the view and command that Sherif should bring the prisoners in front of the judge (Hartz, 2013). In the 13th century, Habeas Corpus was well-implemented, which was an activity only preserved to the monarch. However, in the mid 14th century, after the judicial rivalry, the general purpose of Habeas Corpus was entirely changing. Instead of the judge’s request, the detainees who were waiting for their law court trials were now initiating the Habeas Corpus. Additionally, the law courts started using Habeas Corpus as a tool of examining and questioning the reasons behind one’s detention. Therefore, the parliament used this provision to hold back the abuses made by the law courts. Afterwards, both the local and central courts started to use the Habeas Corpus to challenge the authors authority. This influence grew continuously in the law of English and later adopted by British colonies and US in the year 1789 (Gregory, 2013). History of Habeas corpus in English law In the English law, it was during the Angola-Saxon law when Habeas Corpus was first witnessed, and the Magna Carta followed in the year 1215. The king together with his court followed the Habeas Corpus and all its publications recorded in 1305 by Blackstone one the English Judges. Kind Edward I, was the leader during this period. From Magna Cart, the Habeas Corpus stated that no individual should be detained in any other way apart from through a lawful judgment. Because the Magna Carta was a major part in Law of English, the principles of Habeas Corpus were, therefore incorporated into the English law (Hafetz, 2011). History of Habeas corpus in American law Within the law of America, Habeas Corpus history started in the year 1801 during the leadership of President Thomas Jefferson. This time, President Thomas Jefferson in his speech emphasized the aim of incorporating the Habeas Corpus in the American constitution to ensure protection of people’s freedom. Therefore, America, incorporated Habeas Corpus into its constitution and even today, Habeas Corpus remains as part of the American’s constitution (Hartz, 2013). Examples of suspension of the habeas corpus In the year 1861, before the America entered into its Civil War, Abraham Lincoln issued orders to his military commanders authorizing them to hold back the Habeas Corpus rights. However, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court later argued that Abraham Lincoln had no authority to suspend the Habeas Corpus. Maryland (the federal Circuit Court of Appeals) advised President Abraham Lincoln to pay attention to this law. However, President Lincoln persisted and two years later, the Congress declared a law that gave the President Powers to suspend the law of Habeas if he thought it was beneficial for the public safety (Gregory, 2013). Gregory (2013) also cites another example that followed Pearl Harbor’s attacks, which got America into its WWII. Habeas Corpus was suspended during this time in Hawaii. These two examples indicate that the suspension of Habeas Corpus was both unacceptable and acceptable. Relevance of habeas corpus to the contemporary U.S. situation during the war on terror Habeas Corpus is relevant to the contemporary US situation during the war on terror because it deals with defendants rights ensuring that they should be charged and tried for a certain crime in a good manner. Following the right of the Habeas Corpus, US government must justify the detention of any individual. The jails must show the exact reasons of detaining a particular individual and if they cannot, that detainee should be released. In the today’s war on terror, there seems to a controversy of who has the Habeas Corpus right (Hafetz, 2011). There is also a controversy of whether the US government has the right to hold individual for prolonged periods as “illegal combatants” or “enemy combatants” with no charges for a specific crime. The U.S. Supreme Courts interpretation of the right of habeas corpus The US Supreme Court’s interpretation of Habeas Corpus is that any person should be lawfully detained. In the year 2002, the Constitutional Rights Center together with co-counsel brought their first habeas case in court on behalf of Guantanamo detainees (Hartz, 2013). Initially, the administration of President Bush successfully claimed that these detainees were legally detained and they had no access to any court challenge that they were unlawfully detained. After two years, the Supreme Court’s habeas case was forwarded, although challenged with a series of laws such as DTA (Detainee Treatment Act) and MCA (Military Commissions Act). In the year 2006, MCA amended the statute to remove to the jurisdiction of any “enemy combatant” who was held in the US custody and challenge the military classifying them as illegal or enemy combatants (Hafetz, 2011). Perspectives on this topic The role of president as a commander in chief As related to the Habeas Corpus, the role of president as a commander in chief is to issue authorities to the Navy and Army of the United States. He is also supposed to command the Militia of the states when there is a necessary service in the United States. The President as the commander in Chief has the powers to alert the United States military forces and issue authorities to the military forces (Hartz, 2013). The role of Congress in determining when habeas corpus can be suspended The origin of the Habeas Corpus is found in the US Constitution. According to article I, Section 9, 2nd class, the Habeas Corpus should not be held unless when there is Rebellion of Invasion for the safety of the public. Although the US Constitution does not specify the suspension of the Habeas Corpus right, there is a right to the relief Habeas Corpus of the state prisoners. Only the Congress owns the role of suspending Habeas Corpus writ through its affirmative actions or a delegation to the US Executive. The Executive has no authority of suspending the Habeas Corpus writ (Hafetz, 2011). The role of the Supreme Court in protecting civil liberties The Supreme Court plays a vital role in protecting the civil liberties of the people. The Supreme Court serves as the institution that overturns actions of the branches elected if it thinks that such elections are illegal according to the Constitution. In this perspective, the Supreme Court prevents these branches from violating people’s civil liberties. A good example of this took place in Bush v. Boumediene when the Court neglects the laws that held the Habeas Corpus right for individuals who were unlawfully detained during the war on terror (Hartz, 2013). When the Supreme Court involves in such actions, it clearly indicates its role of protecting civil liberties. Conclusion In conclusion, the main purpose of the involvement of the Habeas Corpus to ensure protection against unlawful tyranny. However, this core function dies during the war against terror. The US government should understand that its main purpose is to ensure people’s freedom in order to enable them develop and explore their own faculties according to President Jefferson. Besides, most people wonder whether this abuse will end since the war on terror seems to be an ongoing event. In order to do away with this doubt, US government must affirm the primary purpose of the Habeas Corpus. References Gregory, A. (2013). The power of habeas corpus in America: From the Kings prerogative to the War on Terror. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hafetz, J. (2011). Habeas Corpus after 9/11: Confronting America’s New Global Detention System. New York: New York University Press. Hartz, E. (2013). From the American Civil War to the War on Terror: Three models of emergency law in the United States Supreme Court. Berlin: Springer. Read More