Habeas Corpus, Civil Liberties and War on Terror
Cynthia Jones
POL201
Martin Sweaney
July 29, 2013
Looking at the “writ of habeas corpus” through the eyes of three presidents and the matter of the “enemy combatants” put in prison, in Guantanamo Bay, on leased land the government of Cuba. We find that some of these are innocence of a crime they have not committed. I seek out the underling of all prisoners held in a compound with no legal rights, civil rights and not able to exercise their freedom of speech. However, some are considered as “enemy combatants” against the United States, while there are many among them that are innocence and not able to practice their civil rights. They are held in a prison of Guantanamo Bay, without intent the reasons explain why they are been detain for something they may have not done, yet they maybe innocence.
As, I look at the extent on “war on terror” justifies the president’s indefinite to detain the “enemy combatants” without possibilities of minimal judicial review. However, we in the United States protest for civil liberties, our rights and equal justice for everyone toward our own government. Even though, we have “enemy combatants” that cannot exercise their rights nor use the habeas corpus because they are not U.S. citizens.
Under the constitution the federal government can unquestionably suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus if the public safety requires it during the rebellion or invasion; the issue with Congress or the president hold this power. On the other hand the issue on historical perspective the context of the civil war requires a study of the action of Congress and president Lincoln’s defense of his suspension of the writ, presidential and congressional dealing with the actions of each other, as you. Looking throughout the history of wartime presidents; I’ll be giving examples of our presidents practicing “Habeas Corpus” during wartime.
Abraham Lincoln, issue an order of the suspension of the constitutionally protected right to writs of habeas corpus in 1861, shortly after the American Civil War. The Writ of habeas Corpus was suspended in respect to all persons arrested, or who are now, or hereafter during the rebellion shall be, imprisoned in any fort, camp, or place confinement by any military authority and sentence by any Court Martial or Military Commission.
George Bush in 2006, he signed a law to suspending the right of habeas corpus to persons “determined by the United States” as an “enemy combatant” in the Global War on terror. His action drew severe criticism, mainly because the law’s failure to specifically designate who in the United States will determine who is and who is not “enemy combatant.”
This is not the first time this has happen; according to Jonathan Turley, professor of constitutional law at George Washington University stated, “What, really, a time of shame this is for an American system. What the Congress did and the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values.” That fact of the Military Commission Act of 2006 was not the first time in history of the U.S. Constitution, guaranteed right of habeas corpus been suspended by a president of the United States. As see here both based their actions on a danger of war and faced sharp criticism for what many believe carrying out to be an attack on Constitution. Both actions of two presidents are wrong doing of habeas corpus (Longely).
The concept since the Middle Ages, habeas corpus ---“You should have the Body” the principle means in Anglo-American jurisprudence by which prisoners can challenge their incarceration. In habeas- corpus proceedings, government is required to bring a prisoner – the body- before the judge and provide a legal rationale for his continued imprisonment. Another concept was so well established of the time of founding of American Republic that framers of Constitution allowed suspensions of the right only
