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

Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus and the War on Terror Just like many other foreign legal jargon, the term Habeas Corpusis derived from the ancient Latin language and it stands for “you shall own the body”. The term is a legal writ which allows prisoners or detainees to seek legal address from any form of detention or imprisonment that is deemed to be unlawful. Personal freedom is deemed to be a civil liberty in America. One if free to move around and live where they please within the boundaries of America. Unlawful imprisonment or detention which will limit one’s ability to move around freely within the borders of the country constitutes an infringement to personal liberties. Such is the interaction between the legal writ of Habeas Corpus and civil liberties. The laws of the United States gives one an opportunity to appeal or remind the federal courts for the action of Habeas Corpus where the government is normally obligated to release the body of the person who has been detained or imprisoned illegally. Petition to the court which have the Habeas Corpus element are normally classified as pro se cases that leaves the government with no other option other than responding fully to the allegations that have been laid before the court. The writ of Habeas Corpus is also applicable at the state level and an affected person can proceed to petition the court systems within their state for a grant of habeas corpusas outlined in the state laws in instances where the person is deemed to be illegally held by the state authorities. Until a century ago, the action of habeas corpus was not enjoyed at the state level. The action itself can be traced back to the Civil War period and reconstruction (Chase). Just like most of the American legal provision, the writ has its history and origin from the colonizers of America – the English. English history documents stories of not only prisoners coming out to claim their innocence, but also seamen, slaves and heretics who sought to be set free. The writ of habeas corpus is similarly to be found deep in the English domestic set up as English women who found themselves in abusive domestic arrangements in their homes sought the kingdom’s protection from their abusive souse. In the 17th and the 18th centuries, judges in the British courts extended the action of habeas corpus and the parliament in its legislative capacity took to impose certain constraints and limits to the writ (Schultz, 2009). Throughout its history in England, Habeas corpus was used to provide a way for the judge to ensure that a person’s physical security and civil liberties are simultaneously protected by ensuring that the affected people are only restrained according to the prevailing laws. King John’s Magna Carter is believed to be the original documentation of the habeas corpus. The Magna Carter, signed in 1215 contained a provision in its 39th clause which required that “no man shall be imprisoned or arrested except after all the legal proceedings in the land have been exhausted by his peers. In the 1600s when the writ started to be seriously enforced, all manners of English authorities had taken upon themselves to imprison people. This is what necessitated the English courts to start to consider actions and petitions for the writ. Rather than the English judges interpreting the writ of habeas corpus to mean the unquestionable right for the king and his authorities to imprison people, the judges opted to view it as one of way through which the king ensured none of his subject is prevented from enjoying his or her civil liberties. Just like its colonizers, the United States’ Supreme Court has recognized that the action of habeas corpus is a guiding legal provision for safeguarding the freedom enjoyed by individuals from lawless and arbitrary state action. As reported, it is obvious that the courts contend that the action of habeas corpus must be administered with great flexibility and initiative to ensure that the possible occurrences of injustices within its reach are quickly identified and corrected. In 1830, Chief Justice John Marshal observed that the distinguishing characteristic of the writ of habeas corpus is its ability to guarantee the liberation of those prisoners who are believed or proven to be incarcerated in prisons and other forms of detention facilities without sufficient cause. In its long history, the writ of habeas corpus has only come under threat when there’s a war at hand. This is because in times of domestic disturbances or war, the popular instinct among the authorities is to value security and stability over law and liberty. This phenomenon of a correlation between beach of habeas corpus and the occurrence of war can be traced to as far back as 1793 when there was a people of conflict involving the British and France. Until the war’s end in 1815, the British parliament whose laws also affected its territories including the Americas continues to pass multiple amendments to the statues which were meant to ensure that the existing definitions of seditious libel and treason are expanded and also to outlaw all the kinds of political associations and public assembly (Gregory, 2013). This was in contrast to the previous trend where the norm was to release a majority of prisoners who had been jailed for seditious libel and treason. The legal reason that was being given at the release of the prisoners at the time was that they had been arrested indiscriminately together with other aspects. In the recent past, the writ of habeas corpus has also been rightly associated with the war on terror that has been waged by the U.S ever since the 2001 terror attacks in New York. In the period that the American War on Terror has been sustained, a number of detentions or holding prisons have been set up in different parts of the world to secretly detain terror suspects or any other person who is deemed as being aggressive towards the Americans. During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan against the Taliban and Al Qaeda terror group, the Guantanamo Bay detention facility which was set up by the President Bush administration became the focus for the defenders of the writ. A significant number of people felt that the detention facilities were against the intention of the habeas corpus as depicted in the American constitution. The American government has always defended itself by insisting that most of these detention facilities are not found within the areas of the United States legal jurisdiction (Hafetz, 2011). As such, the setup and operational environment of such facilities is not in any way affected by the United States Constitution. Also, in setting up such facilities, the American government has always stated that it is for the broader security interests of the country. The facilities have been sources of crucial intelligence which has been used to diffuse more terror plans and attacks. However, in 2008, the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Boumediene v. Bush gave detainees in one such facility, Guantanamo Bay, to take up habeas corpus redress to challenge their detention within the facility. The recognition of the Supreme Court that indeed the writ should be exercised with flexibility and initiative to ensure that no further injustices occur within the writ’s reach and area of jurisdiction is important in the interpretation of this legal move. In regards to the war of terror, Americans should first ask themselves if indeed the detainees in those special facilities are indeed terror suspects. Already there exist documented cases where prisoners have been released from such detention facilities only to turn out to be terrorists and to carry out murderous terror missions in different areas of the world. Such are the dangers and contradictions posed by the legal position. Although the writ was set out to defend people detained, in some instances the same writ has turned out to curtail the civil liberties of those who are already free. Such is the case when a potential terrorist is freed from a detention facility citing the action of habeas corpus only for the same person to come back to cause harm and other form of injustices to others. The case of the Chinese Uighurs who it has since been revealed that they had also been detained at the Guantanamo Bay facility is even more contradictory to the provisions of the writ. Although the Chinese Uighurs do not pose any terror threat to the United States, they will be executed by their own government if indeed the writ of habeas corpus is applied and the Chinese Uighurs are sent back home (United States, 2009). As much as the writ of habeas corpus is aimed at protecting the civil liberties of the imprisoned, it should similarly protect the civil liberties of the free citizens especially when terrorism activities are concerned (Freedman, 2003). The achievements of this would be a great milestone. References Chase, Madar. The Dirty History of Habeas Corpus. Freedman, E. M. (2003). Habeas corpus: Rethinking the great writ of liberty. New York: New York University Press. 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 Americas new global detention system. New York: New York University Press. Schultz, D. A. (2009). Encyclopedia of the United States Constitution. New York: Facts On File. United States. (2009). Habeus [sic] corpus and detentions at Guantanamo Bay: Hearing before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Tenth Congress, first session, June 26, 2007. Washington: U.S. Read More