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

Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror Different communities in different places and nations around the globe have different rights as defined in their constitutions. Human rights are simply the fundamentals practices which are offered to humans as a way of improving their ways of life. Human rights are defined by federal governments and other world organizations such as the United Nation as the fundamental right which includes; right to life, right to education, right to clean water and food. In different nations of the world, the definitions of human rights differ from one community to another. Habeas corpus is a Latin phrase means ‘have a body’ (Constitutional Corner). In English language, the phrase is used to mean the protection of the body that it should not be exposed to calamities of destruction (Amnesty International). Habeas corpus has its history as far as the English speaking nation. The early Englishmen as they were drafting their constitution took into account the rights of her people (Constitutional Corner). However, the law provides mechanism to protect against the abuses of those who oversee human abuses. It is obvious that after a criminal activity, the security officers usually seek for suspects who could have been engaged in the criminal activity and it takes time collecting the evidence against the suspect. In other times, the suspects may stay in jail for a long time awaiting jurisdiction only to find out that the person was not guilty. There was, therefore, a need to come up with a legal framework to be used by those awaiting jurisdiction or those imprisoned unlawfully to seek relief from their imprisonment. The imprisonment relief may be possible where the government lacks enough evidence against the suspects. Therefore, it was proposed that the government should either charge the suspects with the available evidence or free them because it may be unlawful to imprison someone without enough evidence (Constitutional Corner). Habeas corpus as a civil right has been for sometimes suspended in various countries. A good example to this can be laid on the United States of America. The United States of America is well known globally for its fight against terror. The country has experienced terror attacks such as the September 2001 attack and the 1996 Oklahoma City bombing. Therefore, to help the country fight against terrorist the authority found it prudent to suspend habeas corpus as a right to the terrorist suspects as an effective way to combat terrorism. Following the 1996 Oklahoma City bombing the congress, the highest lawmaking organ passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (Doyle, 1996). This was done to help deal with the escalating acts of terrorism. It act removed the right accorded to all the enemy combatants in reference to habeas corpus. This was done because the legal procedures takes is lengthy and takes time and if it were to be followed the judicial system could have difficulties prosecuting the terror suspects as the evidence used in court against them could be very weak thus giving them a free walk out of the prison. This was dangerous to the safety of the public as the terror gang could utilize the weakness of the judiciary to continue with their ill attack. It was decided that this writ be denied to terror detainees (Legal Information Institute). According to this act, one could not apply for release and the judges were prohibited from making a case decision. This was administered as a national policy for the safety of the citizens. The September 11th, 2001 attack on world trade towers in New York City prompted the president of the United States of America, George W. Bush to change some parts in the bill of Rights that concern habeas corpus. His mission was to successfully fight against terror. He argued that crime suspects who were detained in Guantanamo Bay for terrorism act be denied the right to seek an order move them out of prison. He said that the suspect endanger the security of the nation. The president also issued a presidential directive on May 9th, 2007 that allowed him to take the control of the federal government (Constitutional Corner). This was because of the way terrorism was viewed as a catastrophic emergency. The directive was as a way of harmonizing the three arms of government namely; the judiciary, the legislative and the executive. Though the three arms of government are perceived to have equal power, the directive gave the president the final authority in such a crisis. The directive was to be applicable to all the future presidents, and the three arms of the Government were to be coordinated by the president. The terrorism threat made President Bush to practice the presidential decree to fight against t war on terror and thus suspension of habeas corpus under the Presidential Military Order of November 13th, 2001(Paye, 2012). This order gave power to detain those who were found culpable in terror activities. This order was to affect the non-citizens suspected to have or believed to have a connection with terrorists or were believed to be the organizers of terrorism. Those who were believed to have been connected to terrorism were to be jailed without being charged through the legal process in a court hearing. They were also not allowed to be represented by the lawyers like normal citizens. As stated earlier, the reason for this action is to evade the weakness in evidence submissions if the court hearing were to be staged which could lead to the freedom of the suspects. At sometimes, some citizens who were found guilty of terrorism were also held without being given the right of habeas corpus. A good example was the detention of Jose Padilla, who was captured in the U.S (Knowland, 2012). It was much bitter for him taking to notice that many of the terrorist who were held without trial were aliens who were captured from abroad. The Bush presidential order did not go for long as many scholars and legal practitioners oppose it (Parry, 2007). They argued that citizens of any nation were entitled to certain writs which were to be provided and protected by the federal government. For an instant, many constitutional and legal scholars, together with the law practitioners opposed this order terming it as unconstitutional, and that it breached the bill of right. The United States of America Supreme Court agreed with the scholars and declared that all American citizens have a right to habeas corpus even when they have been declared to be enemy combatants. The court also argued that habeas corpus is a core human right and it was not supposed to be interfered with. The court also added a blow to the presidential orders by stating that the policy detainee has a right to seek protection of habeas corpus and it was unconstitutional for the presidential to curtail people freedom guaranteed in the constitution. This was challenged in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus arguing that the military commissions set up by President Bush Administration to try the detainees at the Guantanamo Bay violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UMCJ). It was also seen as to violate the four Geneva Conventions. The Supreme Court also denied the congress the go ahead to remove the court of law over habeas corpus appeals by terror suspects who had been held in military operated Guantanamo Bay. It argued that citizens of a sovereign state must be protected by the constitution at all times. They also argued that innocent citizens may be innocently being confused to have committed crimes and be imprisoned innocently. Denying them the writ to habeas corpus would then be denying them justice due to the false accusation (Legal Information Institute). They, therefore, stated that all American citizens must be protected by the Bills of rights impartially. The Supreme Court also challenged the extent to which the habeas corpus can be applicable to the non-citizens in the United States of America. They stated that it was a human right to be given a chance to be heard in a court of law irrespective of your citizenship. This was because some of the detainees who were held as enemy combatants may have been there as mistaken identity. Therefore, denying them the right to be heard in a judicial court through their lawyers was denying them justice. Innocent people could go through torture for nothing. This ruling which was made by the Supreme Court was another setback to the president and his administration and also to the congress. As one of the roles of the Congress is to formulate Laws in assurance of the safety of all the citizens and to the essence of combating the global terrorism, the congress launched yet another attack on the habeas corpus. This time they passed a Military Commissions Act in the year 2006 which eliminated habeas corpus by allowing non-citizens enemy combatants to be held indefinitely in the military prisons (Constitutional Corner). The enemy combatants were not allowed to have access to lawyers or to appear before a court of justice. This was because of the obvious reasons that it would be very difficult to have enough evidence to be used in the courts against the suspects. This legislation denial of habeas corpus rights to non citizens detained at the Guantanamo Bay is still under challenge and is to be considered by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has its mandate in ensuring that the civil liberties are protected including the judicial philosophies which guides the Court. This philosophy is ensures that the civil rights are well protected including the right to habeas corpus. In 2008, the Supreme Court made a ruling against the Congress attempt to strip federal courts to hear habeas corpus petitions from the non-American prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. The five bench ruling that was passed in favour of the majority was read by Justice Anthony Kennedy, and it was seen as a relief for the detainees who were denied the right to habeas corpus. They majority decision declared that the Laws was supposed to serve all the people as it is in the constitution at all the times regardless of the event. They decided that the legal framework of the American constitution must place the right to habeas corpus in importance to all her citizens. This decision has of late been challenged by lawyer who rejected the appeals in seven habeas corpus cases involving detainees challenging the legality of their imprisonment. This was the judicial role of ensuring that the national security is given the first priority among others. In conclusion, national and global security against terrorism is a priority of all government and States. Terrorists must be dealt with at all cost. The federal government must work together with all arms of government to ensure that her citizens are safe. In doing so, the rights of persons should be protected to ensure that no innocent person is subjected to torture or damage. I, therefore, argue for deep investigations before a person is detained and interrogations should form a basis in the process of identifying the terrorist. Those who are found guilty should be held in the military preferred bases such as the Guantanamo Bay. Justice should be a shield and defender of the people rights especially the right to habeas corpus. References Amnesty International. Habeas Corpus. Retrieved from < http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/security-and-human-rights/illegal-and-indefinite-detention/habeas-corpus>. Constitutional Corner. The History of Habeas Corpus. Web Retrieved from < https://www.rutherford.org/constitutional_corner/habeas_corpus/>. Doyle, Charles. (1996). Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996: A Summary. Retrieved from < http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/96-499.htm>. Knowland, Don. (2012). US Supreme Court rejects appeals by Guantanamo detainees and Jose Padilla. Retrieved from < http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/06/cour-j13.html>. Legal Information Institute. Habeas Corpus. Retrieved from < http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/habeas_corpus>. Parry, Robert. (2007). Gonzales Questions Habeas Corpus. Retrieved from < http://www.globalresearch.ca/gonzales-questions-habeas-corpus/4539>. Paye, Claude. (2012). The Suspension of Habeas Corpus in America. Retrieved from < http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-suspension-of-habeas-corpus-in-america/5311701>. . Read More