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

Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror Introduction The habeas corpus is one of the most significant rights provided by the US Constitution to prisoners. The right has been present, in the US since the year 1787 and has since redefined prisoners’ rights in the judicial process. This paper will examine different elements regarding the right of habeas corpus, discussing its evolution and relevance within the judicial context. The right or writ of habeas corpus facilitates the enforcement of freedoms encompassed in the Declaration of US Independence. The Right of Habeas Corpus and Protection of Civil Liberties The US Constitution defines the writ of habeas corpus as the fundamental right granted to prisoners allowing them the right to demand appearance before a judge. This aims at guaranteeing whether or not the prisoner should remain in prison. In essence, the Constitution provides that prisoners or their representatives approach the court for the right. The right of habeas corpus prevents the executive from unjustifiably putting people in prison. This is because the right demands all persons to appear before a judge or magistrate to challenge the charges brought against them. The right of habeas corpus is an integral protection of Americans’ liberties since it ensures the protection of all Americans from unlawful detainment. The writ of habeas corpus guarantees all Americans the second freedom in the Declaration of Independence, i.e. freedom from wanton imprisonment. Furthermore, the right also preserves people’s rights to demand sufficient justification from the government, for imprisonment. More to this, writ of habeas corpus preserves the rights of Americans not to be imprisoned wantonly. Moreover, the right further protects prisoners from any laws enacted subsequent to their imprisonment, i.e. or laws enacted after the fact. However, the Constitution of the US offers that the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in instances regarding the invasion of public safety or events regarding acts of rebellion (Irons, 2009). For example, in the history of the US, the writ of habeas corpus was suspended in the fight against Ku Klux Klan, Civil War, and Renaissance period and during the War on Terror. Evolution of Habeas Corpus While the right of habeas corpus is accepted within American culture, the idea is not originally from the US. Habeas emanated from the West via an Act of the Parliament of England (the 1679 Habeas Corpus Act). The act became necessary to deter wanton imprisonment of the people of England by the King and his deputies. The right of habeas corpus heralded the Magna Carta of 1215. The Magna Carta indirectly referred to the writ by prohibiting the wrongful incarceration of individuals. Nonetheless, prior to the year 1979, the habeas corpus existed in spirit. While the idea is primarily Anglo-Saxon, it was adopted into policy by the US in 1787 after the establishment of the US Constitution. The writ has since been used to ensure the appearance of all prisoners before courts of law (Wert, 2011). The US Constitution explicitly outlines the condition of habeas corpus in Article 1, Section 9. It is critical to note that the writ does not function in seclusion but rather it is fortified by the 14th Amendment, as well as the Bill of Rights, which specify the rights and freedoms of all Americans. In the US, federal review of habeas corpus reached inmates in state custody nearly one century after America attained independence. During the Reconstruction and Civil War, as well as in the course of the War on Terror, people accused of actions contrary to public safety did not enjoy the right of habeas corpus. So as to ascertain that state courts implement federal laws of the habeas corpus, Congress adopted the Reconstruction Act to fortify the capacity of federal courts to review state-based cases (Benson, 1914). This strategy enhanced the capacity of prisoners on American soil to access the right. The successive federal habeas corpus law consists of numerous amendments and is accessible at 28 U.S.C. § 2241 of the US Constitution. Instances of suspension of habeas corpus In the US, the president is able to suspend the applicability of habeas corpus. This is in order to establish alternative laws that undercut the legality of the existing habeas corpus. In the history of the US, two prominent examples of habeas corpus suspension exist. The initial suspension occurred, in 1861, at the onset of the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln was the first American president to suspend the habeas corpus. The suspension resulted in intense criticism as the president was accused of attacking the US Constitution. Lincoln based his suspension on the belief that prisoners of war detained during the American Civil War had no freedom or right to challenge their detainment. The Supreme Court reinstated habeas corpus when the Civil War ended, in 1866. President Bush also suspended the habeas corpus, in 2006, by dismissing the ability of enemy combatants to challenge their imprisonment. The US disallowed persons it considered guilty of assisting the enemy in the worldwide war against terror from applying the habeas corpus. Moreover, the dismissal of the habeas corpus denied enemy combatants the right to seek representation in a court. Bush’s suspension of 2006 is referred to as the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Both the aforementioned suspensions are applicable today, especially Bush’s suspension against enemy allies in the war against terror. When a person is proven to be a terror collaborator, he or she cannot petition the habeas corpus. Relevance of Habeas Corpus Today, the war on terror is the main reason for the suspension of habeas corpus. Subsequent to 9/11, President Bush instituted a military direction for the detainment, management, as well as judgment of noncitizens involved in the war on terror. The law infringed on some vital international, as well as national rights, for instance, the Geneva Conventions, Uniform Code of Military Justice and the military Courts Martial. In addition, Bush’s military order deprived prisoners of the right to a hasty trial and the habeas corpus. Habeas corpus remains relevant in the contemporary age because of the continued war on terror. This is because habeas corpus provides for its denial to terrorists, particularly on American soil. Under the current Constitution, terrorists cannot benefit from habeas corpus since their actions infringe on public safety. This is satisfactory cause for the suspension of the writ (Gareau, 2004). The war on terror is a global war. Therefore, habeas corpus is relevant as it protects not only US citizens from acts of terror but also the whole world (Ferguson, 2004). When the US disallows habeas corpus’ applicability to illegal and enemy combatants, such combatants will be unable to perform, facilitate or fund acts of terror hence saving lives globally. Supreme Courts interpretation The Supreme Court ruled 5-4, in Boumediene v. Bush that enemy combatants imprisoned within the US ought to have the right of habeas corpus according to the US Constitution (Article 1, Section 9). The Supreme Court’s interpretation holds that enemy combatants should not be imprisoned indefinitely without fair trials in civilian courts (Sherman, 2008). The justices observed that the US contravened the international human rights of Afghanis held at Guantanamo Bay for six years. This is because the US Constitution stipulates lawful suspension of habeas corpus. However, the Military Commissions Act deterred justices from hearing habeas corpus petitions of alien detainees in the US. The majority justices ruled that the denial of habeas corpus to the Afghani detainees was unconstitutional since Section 7 of the Military Commissions Act was unconstitutional (Greenhouse, 2008). Evaluations The role of the President as commander-in-chief Under Article II, Section 2, Clause I of the Constitution, the president is also the US armed forces’ commander-in-chief. The President is, therefore, a living representation of the US demonstrating American rules and customs. Therefore, when the president makes wrong choices, the US is also reflected injuriously. The president is the head of the executive branch within the government, choosing the laws to enact. As commander-in-chief, the president has the explicit power to call American troops to war or stop and choose to bomb different areas during warfare. The role of Congress in Suspending Habeas Corpus The US Constitution provides that Congress is the only institution with the power to establish laws. This means that Congress can establish or deter laws that affect the applicability of habeas corpus whenever such suspension is necessary. In 2006, Congress established the Military Commissions Act that deferred habeas corpus to enemy combatants (Hardin, 2004). The act removed the ability of the US judiciary to hear applications of habeas corpus for enemy combatants. The function of the Supreme Court in defending civil liberties The Supreme Court advocates the preservation of civil liberties by deterring unlawful treatment of American. The Supreme Court preserves accepted civil liberties such as the Bill of Rights. The court also preserves civil liberties by prohibiting their violation by other government branches, especially the executive. The court prohibits the wrongful imprisonment of people on US soil. Personal Philosophy The proper balance between civil liberties and national security is critical. Although the war on terror is vital, it is also fundamental that the US defends civil liberties. When an individual is assumed to be an enemy combatant, the person should obtain a fair and speedy trial in keeping with the Constitution. In conclusion, the habeas corpus is a fundamental area of the US Constitution because it protects people’s civil liberties. The right or writ of habeas corpus also facilitates the enforcement of freedoms encompassed in the Declaration of US Independence. References Benson, T. B. (1914). Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction of Federal and State Courts. The Virginia Law Register, 20(4), 241-259. Gareau, F. H. (2004). State terrorism and the United States: From counterinsurgency to the war on terrorism. London: Zed Books. Greenhouse, L. (2008). Justices, 5-4, Back Detainee Appeals for Guantánamo. New York: The New York Times. Ferguson, N. (2004). Prisoner taking and prisoner killing in the age of total war: Towards a political economy of military defeat. War in History, 11(2), 182. Hardin, R. (2004). Civil Liberties in the Era of Mass Terrorism. The Journal of Ethics  8, 77-95. Irons, P. H. (2009). A peoples history of the Supreme Court (2nd ed.). New York: Penguin. Sherman, M.  (2008). Terror suspects can challenge detention: U.S. Supreme Court. Globe and Mail. Retrieved on 12 June. 2008. Wert, J. J. (2011). Habeas corpus in America: The politics of individual rights. Kansas: Kansas University Press. Read More