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

Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror al Affiliation Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror Introduction Every citizen has basic rights enshrined in the constitution. It is the duty of government institution to ensure these rights are protected. The protections of these rights are aimed at ensuring equality within the justice system. The major concern has been the limitation of these rights. The rights for a fair trial are protected within the USA jurisdiction. However, the government deploys mechanism that places exceptions in within the constitution. The USA Naval base in Guantanamo is an example of the united state to fight war on terror without limitation caused by legal provision. The main concern over the years has been to evaluate the civil rights and limit then in matter national security. Habeas corpus was the major concern towards the war on terror. The government has been able to navigate this obstacle. The civil society and the human rights groups have aimed at advocating for habeas corpus for terror suspects. The USA administrations have had their priority as far as habeas corpus and war against terror has been concerned. History Historical events have forced the American government to consider civil rights to foreigners held at their naval bases. The aims of these naval bases have been to enhance the government source information from foreign suspects without infringing the law. Different administrations have been subject of judicial battles to ensure detainees at the naval base access their fundamental rights. The USA enacted laws that would prevent a writ habeas corpus application for foreign suspects. The 2006 military act ensured that suspects detained at military bases had had limited civil rights. President Bush used the rule to enhance war against terrorism and ignoring the fundamental right. The 21st century made USA vulnerable to terror attacks and efforts were in place to ensure subjects are reprimanded hence limited the maximum period set by the law in trying and prosecuting suspects within the country. Overview The continuous threats brought in the argument of civil rights versus national security. War of Terror was becoming a global responsibility and the changing landscapes of terror implied that the USA extended its jurisdiction beyond the national borders. The government over the years has deemed war combatant ineligible for habeas corpus. The ultimate goal was to ensure the war against terrorism is won within the borders. The loopholes that warranted terror suspects the right of hearing was limited once the Guantanamo bay detention was initialize. The aim was to deal with terror and war suspects without being constrained by the constitution. Different instances have prompted the nation to amend the writ of Habeas corpus in an effort to deal with matters national security. The law limits itself within the national borders and amendments made were aimed at exempting foreign suspects from national privileges. Military Act The impact of the 2006 military act was evident when the first detainees were kept in the US navy base in Guantanamo bay. As much as the rights and privileges of the detainees have been limited, different detainees have successful petitioned the government. The petitioners have been able to challenge the military act and called for equally rights and privileges enjoyed by inmates across the countries correctional facility. The cases held in the American soil drew the line between civil liberties and national security. The attempt by government to label suspects illegal enemy combatants hence deny them their civil right privilege (Clark, 2007). Boumediene versus Bush In the case of Boumediene v. Bush, the court ruled in favor of the defendant. The case drew a line between civil liberties and the country’s model in combating terrorism threats. The court aimed at interprets the military act and decides on the application for Habeas corpus. The petitioners where six foreign detainees held in the Guantanamo bay under the military act of 2006 that gave the president powers to label a suspect an illegal combatant and deny then Habeas corpus application (McRae, 2009). The effort to apply for Habeas corpus was dealt a blow by the legislative arm of the government. The congress passed regulation that limited the powers of the local legal system to listen to Habeas corpus application from foreigners considered enemy combatants. Under the new act, those perceived as enemy combatant were given the privilege of arguing their case before a military tribunal (McRae, 2009). During the ruling, the court highlighted the new Military Commission Act. The court identified the act as a factor that deterred the local judicial system from listening alien application for Habeas corpus. This ruling heightened the debate created by civil rights groups on equality. During the ruling, the court stated the areas of jurisdiction. The Military commission was mandated to ensure the Habeas corpus is applicable to those suspects whose status as enemy combatant is reversed. The commission was mandated to ascertain the status of a suspect. The ruling created an argument on civil rights. The naval base had created the difference between civil rights enjoyed by American citizens and those enjoyed by foreigners considered threat to national security. The 2007 ruling defined the Habeas corpus application limitation. The military commission overtook the court mandates. The Guantanamo bay proved a predicament to the application. However, other applicants have successfully petitioned the government for writ of Habeas corpus. Rasul versus Bush The court granted the plaintiff the writ of Habeas corpus. The case based its argument on the history of Habeas corpus. In the ruling, the presiding judge issued the colonial application where the British had mandate over the sovereignty of the nation and that the state was obliged to follow suit and issue the plaintiff the writ of Habeas corpus (Clark, 2007). The court acknowledged lack of jurisdiction over the Guantanamo bay detainees but indicted the need for equal rights for alien held by the naval base. The two cases ruled based on history of the Habeas corpus. In the case of Boumediene versus Bush, the argument was based on the court jurisdiction under the new act. The two cases highlight the need for the government to base their argument on equal civil rights. The rulings also indicted the jurisdiction of the court on people termed as enemy combatants (Government Printing Office, 2010). Evaluation According to Clark (2007), the country’s war against terrorism has infringed on the civil rights stipulated in both the local constitution and the UN convention. The state has indicted the need to detained enemy combatants on ground that their release could pose danger to national security. In some case, the state lacks the evidence required to prosecute an enemy combatant. The suspects if granted the writ of Habeas corpus could influence the country war against terror. The county has been able to profile the criminals based on nationality and use the military act of 2006 to ascertain their status. The Habeas corpus rule according to the United states constitution, is a matter of court ruling. Those feeling oppressed by existing laws may apply for the writ of Habeas corpus. According to McRae (2009). The legal mechanisms are based on jurisdiction. The country’s decision to locate the naval base in Cuba indicates the country’s decision to heighten war against terror. The suspects held at the facility are not protected by the legal system hence ineligible to apply for writ of Habeas corpus. The Military act of 2006 complicated the status of suspects at the Guantanamo bay facility. Personal philosophy As much as the national security is paramount, the country needs to acknowledge the importance of fair trial. Fair trial implies availing suspects to the court of justice and highlighting the need for each suspect regardless of their nationality to access the judicial system. The writ of Habeas corpus should be granted on ground that fair judicial system will provide justice for both the nation and the suspects. The Military Commission Act infringes on the civil rights enshrined in the Geneva Convention. The nature in which the states unlawfully detain the suspects at the naval base highlights the selective justice applied by the nation. The denial of the writ of Habeas corpus indicates the states position of guilty without trial. The state needs to acknowledge the important roles played by judicial systems. There needs to be a balance between national security and war against terrorism. Conclusion The government position on matters habeas corpus and war against terror is clear. The state prioritizes national security and selectively applies the habeas corpus. Over the years the country has been subjected to habeas corpus debates, previously the court rulings based their argument on historical decision. The Boumediene versus Bush highlighted the importance of the priorities set by the nation. The country’s war against terror has twisted the local regulation with the judiciary having to share their mandate with the military commission set up in 2006 to ascertain the status of a foreign suspect. The rule limits the rights of inmates stipulated in the USA constitution. The court plays an important role in interpreting the law. The state is mandated to ascertain whether a given suspect is an enemy combatant. Those perceived as enemy combatant are denied the right to access justice through the local legal mechanisms. Reference Clark, J. (2007). Habeas Corpus: Its Importance, History, and Possible Current Threats. University of Tennessee Honors Thesis Projects. Retrieved from http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj/1057 Government Printing Office. (2010). Congressional Record, Volume 151-Part 19: November 8, 2005 to November 16, 2005 (Pages 25297 to 26552). Washington, D.C: G.P.O. McRae, A. (2009).Boumediene v. Bush: Another Chapter in the Court’s Jurisprudence on Civil Liberties at Guantanamo Bay. Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar,4 pp.247-265 Read More