Running head: WAR ON TERROR
1
Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror
Name
POL 201American National Government
Instructor
date
WAR ON TERROR
2
Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror
Throughout history, the motivation of man's self interest has concluded in the domination
of those with little or no power in the absence of the rule of law. The war on terror presents an
unpredictable challenge for the United States whereas terrorists are apprehended and deprived of
due process. The right of Habeas corpus overrules man's interpretation, in which allows those
accused federal and state court representation before judge, or jury. It asserts that accusers
deemed innocent until proven guilty, accusers possessed the right to representation, appear in
person, and charges brought forth. This essay will concentrate on the evolution of habeas corpus,
and its suspension by the United States, its relevance during the war on terror, and the United
States Supreme Court's interpretation. Nevertheless, these laws are in place to protect every one,
moreover to avoid unlawful apprehension, and ensure that habeas corpus works as intended by
the Constitution.
The historical evolution of habeas corpus born from the Magna Carta, known as the
English Bill of Rights began in England in the early 1200s. Under force from English barons,
King John of England placed his signature on the Magna Carta in 1215, in which comprised of a
list of human rights and civil liberties. It asserted that the King needed consent from his
legislative body to impose taxes upon its citizens. Halliday (2011) notes that habeas corpus
serves as a writ and a scrabble parchment that a judge ordered a jailer to bring forth a named
prisoner to court to face said written charges. This very important document additionally
established that trial and due process of law must occur previous to confiscating property or
freedom from any free man who resided in England. Instead of King John stepping down from
power he agreed to place boundaries on the power of the monarchy, sign the Magna Carta,
wherein honored the constitutional rights and privileges of his countrymen.
WAR ON TERROR
3
This document serves as a treaty of union, and agreement with the King wherein
guaranteed and respected the civil liberties (personal freedoms) (Levin-Waldman, 2012) of its
citizens. Only in the presence of rule of law prohibits countrymen from depriving countrymen of
basic human rights. Politicians, and citizens augur that this act occurred in America when the
national Defense authorization act (NDAA) passed in 2011. Opponents suggests that this bill
proves unconstitutional for the reason that it strips away habeas corpus, thus allowing the
detainment of American citizens suspected of terrorist activity for an indefinite period devoid of
a trial. Other politicians, and citizens consider this act stands as a breach of the Posse Comitatus
Act of 1876 in which forbid the Army's participation in domestic lawful assembly on American
soil.
The suspension of habeas corpus number in the few for good reason, and presidents,
politicians, and Supreme Court justices auger whether or not the Constitution offer provisions to
commit such an act. However, the rights of habeas corpus denied by President Abraham Lincoln
in 1862 during the American Civil War, and in 2006 by President George Bush fighting the war
on terror. The reasons for the suspension of habeas corpus by Lincoln and Bush were worlds
apart as explained by Foner, (n.d.). Foner notes that Lincoln were perhaps on the threshold of
losing a nation; whereas, Bush believe it essential to detain prisoners of war without due process
of law after the attacks by terrorists on September 11, 2001.
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 signed into law by President Bush gave unlimited
authority toward establishing a military commission. On the other hand, Lincoln deemed it vital
to protect a stretch of land from Baltimore to Washington DC. This railroad line involved
transportation, troop movement, and delivering supplies. Only in the occurrence of rebellion or
invasion does the president possess the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus; however, the
WAR ON TERROR
4
terms rebellion, and invasion takes on several meanings, and which undergo litigating through
generations to generation. In other words, in grave situations concerning the safety of the public,
the federal government can incontestably suspend the privilege or writ of habeas corpus under
the Constitution.
On July 12, 2008 majority justice Kennedy joined by Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, and
Stevens held that prisoners at Guantanamo Bay suspected of committing terrorism possess
constitutional rights, in which allows them the process of challenging their detention in the
United States civil court of law. The courts only reiterated that before the Bill of Rights appeared
in the Constitution, habeas corpus stood as a civil right for prisoners of war. The Bush
administration drew heavy scrutiny regard to civil rights from majority justice Kennedy
regarding those detained at Guantanamo, in which he concluded that the Constitution warrants
nothing less than full habeas corpus. Some members of the Supreme Court consider the act of
Denying any prisoner of war, especially Afghan soldiers stands one of those extreme measures in
which the government denies habeas corpus, thus committing war crimes under the Geneva
Convention. Moreover, the three branches of the United States government collectively
recognize the Geneva Convention as binding (Katyal, Bongiovanni, & Valentini, 2007).
On the other hand, for many court justices denying rights to terrorists seems deserving of
anyone who sets out to kill innocent people anywhere although not in the act of war;
nevertheless, Congress does not possess the power to strike away these rights. However,
Congress provided the federal courts will habeas corpus jurisdiction from its inception, and it
will take affirmative action to withdraw jurisdiction (Vladeck, 2010). Fighting the war on terror
proves the most unconventional war any country face. These individuals entire life consist of
killing Americans citizens or anyone (infidels) meaning those who do not accept Islamic faith
WAR ON TERROR
5
when and wherever an opportunity present itself. People speculate that should mindless rhetoric,
such as this merit traditional representation of the Constitution, and the answer varies throughout
the nation. There proves a need for habeas corpus because of its humane connotation. In other
words, every form of torture, and some critics make auger that some form of torture considered
beneath the conduct of the United States; moreover those that participate in such a manner prove
not worthy of wearing the United States military uniform.
Many Americans believe the Bush administration proceeded overzealously in the efforts
to fight terrorism. Nevertheless; subsequent to terrorists striking down the World Trade Center
buildings in New York City, American citizens wanted the United States to strike back
immediately with deadly force. Just under 4000 citizens perished in the attacks bestowed on New
York City on September 11, 2001, and the Bush administration worked tirelessly to gather
intelligence before making decisive maneuvers to bring those responsible to justice. Niday,
(2008) notes that in the immediate wake of 9/11 the war receive near unanimous support of the
war on terror from both sides of the aisles and the Bush administration employed terms such as
illegal combatants, and enemy combatants to bolster its campaign. In times of calamity,
Americans, and people throughout the world stand at their best, and pull together in unison to aid
one another. One could almost surmise that Americans may fight among each other issues of
race, politics, and human rights; however, failed to allow others to come hashed out devastation
on other Americans on American soil, or anywhere in the world.
Common knowledge demonstrate that wealthier Americans; moreover, the rich in general
do not serve equal time in jail for crimes committed as the poor. One have to surmise that people
work their entire lives to amass riches to achieve an advantage in the world; even if it means
special treatment in regard to unequal justice. Even though Betty v. Bradley deprived lawful
WAR ON TERROR
6
representation to accusers charged with a crime; however, unable financially to secure
representation in 1942, the Supreme Court ruled that the right of legal representation, and the
sixth amendment obligated states to provide legal counsel nonetheless (Levin-Waldman, 2012).
The writ of habeas corpus provides everyone the right to judge, jury, and trial. This law protects
citizens from tyranny, unlawful arrest, and imprisonment without legal representation. The writ
of habeas corpus presently address, or intervene between several procedures, (e.g., post
convictions, prisoners not charged with a crime, prisoners awaiting trial, death row inmates, and
prisoners serving long sentences than usual. The idea of habeas corpus will materialize often
when discussing matters of civil liberties and the Constitution, and obviously people in general
believe totally in this fundamental right.
In the case of major disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina prove the shortcomings of
government, and the incorrect intelligence toward finding weapons of mass destruction only
substantiate that government assertions may turn out false. Nevertheless, that proves why the
right to habeas corpus (a fair hearing before an impartial judge) proves written in the
Constitution. Injustice anywhere prove injustice everywhere, and people in the United States
regardless of their stature, and wealth stand guarantee the fundamental rights of due process
under the law of habeas corpus. The Constitution of the United States make America the greatest
country in the world; however, there are those constantly challenging the weight of the
Constitution, pushing amendments to uncharted territories, and denying fundamental rights to
those thought less deserving. Nevertheless, American patriots stand proud of the idea of a totally
free nation, in which every ethnic group, men, and women can thrive together on the rule of law.
WAR ON TERROR
7
Reference
Bradley, C. (2010). Clear statement rules and executive war powers. Harvard Journal of Law
and Public Policy, 33(1), 1439-148. Document ID: 1950961981.
Foley, B. (2007). Guantanamo and beyond: Dangers of rigging the rules. Journal of Criminal
Law & Criminology, 97(4), 1009-10069. Document ID: 1466824931. Retrieved from
ProQuest Central database, in the Ashford Online Library.
Foner, E. (n.d.). Lincoln’s abuse of the presidential power [Video]. Available from
http://www.5min.com/Video/Lincolns-Abuse-of-the-Presidential-Power-294084084
FOR A.tv. (2009). Gitmo and the writ of habeas corpus [Video]. Available from
http://www.5min.com/Video/Gitmo-and-the-Writ-of-Habeas-Corpus-516897065
Halliday, P. (2011, March 17). Habeas corpus: From England to Empire [Video]. Available
from http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/298560-5
Katyal, N., Bongiovanni, G., & Valentini, C. (2007, December). Terrorism, emergency powers,
and the role of the U.S. Supreme Court: An interview with Neal K. Katyal. Ratio Juris,
20(4), 443-455. Retrieved from Academic search Premier (EBSCOhost), in the Ashford
Online Library.
Levin-Waldman, O. M. (2012). American government. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education,
Inc.
Niday, J. (2008). The war against terror as war against the Constitution. Canadian Review of
American Studies, 38(1), 101-117. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier
(EBSCOhost) database, in the Ashford Online Library.
Vladeck, S. (2010). The unreviewable executive: Kiyemba, Maqaleh, and the Obama
WAR ON TERROR
administration. Constitutional Commentary, 26(3), 603-623. Retrieved from Academic
Search Premier (EBSCOhost) database, in the Ashford Online Library.
8