Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror

 The concept of habeas corpus means “to produce the body”. And about it, I wrote in cooperation with essay on powerpoint This concept has been widely used all over the world. The government of the United States grants its citizens the right of habeas corpus. Individual who has been imprisoned appears before the court of law for a determination to be made on whether they have been illegally detained. The history of habeas corpus backdates from the 13 century. History indicates that the term first appeared in 1305. However, it is believed that the term habeas corpus still existed as a component of the common law in the 12th century. King John signed the article 39 in 1215, where it clearly explained the concept of habeas corpus. The term clearly spelled the rules regarding detention by clearly stating that free men should never be imprisoned or outlawed.

The term habeas corpus evolved through the efforts of the founding fathers. They drew the habeas corpus act in 1679 during the time of King Charles II. The right of habeas corpus could be used as a weapon against monarchy system in England. The concept of habeas corpus in the United States can be explained through the case of Dred Scott. Dred Scott fought for his freedom and he sought the application of his right of habeas corpus. The court applied the concept of habeas corpus and he won his freedom.

Habeas corpus is defined in the America constitution in article 1 sec 9. The constitution defines habeas corpus as the reserved right for the prisoners to challenge their imprisonment. The section also clearly states that the right of habeas corpus can only be suspended in the event of war or rebellion.

The American constitution makes clear provisions that the principle of habeas corpus will prevail at all times except in the case of rebellion where it might be suspended. The United states have suspended habeas corpus in several occasions, as explained below.

Suspension of the writ of habeas corpus was first done by President Abraham Lincoln in the United States in 1861. He suspended the writ after he got the news that crowds had intentions of destroying the railroads. The suspension only applied to a section of the route. He received oppositions and the court challenged his decision and overturned it. The senate later convened in 1861 and upheld his decision. As a result of the constant court challenges, he ordered the release of the prisoners in early 1862. He later suspended the writ in September the same year.

The second suspension occurred when the senate met in 1862. The senate passed a bill that indemnified Abraham Lincoln action of suspending the writ of habeas corpus. The senate made amendments to the bill and this bill allowed the suspension of the writ on the authority of the congress. Lincoln continued to suspend the writ using the act. He suspended the writ to the spies, traitor and prisoners of war. The suspension of the writ also occurred during the reconstruction period after the civil war, since some individuals opposed the reconstruction. Other instances of the suspension occurred in the 21st century during the time of Bill Clinton. Clinton suspended the writ to all non-citizens who seemed to cause terror.

The various instances of suspension of the writ are highly applicable to the present times. The writ can be suspended in case of rebellion. The cases of terrorism are on the rise and it is wise to suspend the writ to such individuals.

Habeas corpus was relevant to the US situation. At the time, the US was facing security threats. The acts of terrorism had become eminent and many sympathizers with the terrorists had also emerged. It was apparently clear that the United States had to act swiftly to solve the situation at hand. Just like any other nation, protecting the citizens and maintaining security is a priority, when compared to rights of an individual.

The enemy combatants who had been arrested in connection to crimes had not been detained like the normal civilians. The enemy combatant’s cases did not have much evidence. The enemy combatants could have won their release if they challenged the decision in a court of law. The government could have lost in its efforts to fight crime if they did not suspend habeas corpus. On the other hand, it could not have been right to grant habeas corpus to individuals who had collaborated with criminals. This could have jeopardized the fight against terror. The decision to deny the enemy combatants the right to habeas corpus was a very wise decision. I would say that this deterred individuals who could have intended to commit crimes from committing crimes.

The suspension of the writ to citizens who had been declared as enemy combatants, also aided a lot in the fight against terror; it discouraged the sympathizers of the terrorists from continuing with the action. Habeas corpus was relevant in the fight against terror in the United States. As per the requirement of the constitution, I think habeas corpus was applied in relevance to the scenarios at hand.

The case lies among the many popular cases that relate to the right of habeas corpus. The case was filed in the US court on behalf of Lehar Boumediene - a criminal of war who had been detained by US forces at the Guantanamo bay in Cuba. The case challenged the legality of the detention by the US forces. The case heard the oral arguments on 2007 and the judgment were delivered later in 2008. Judge Kennedy made his verdict which was a decision made by 5-4 majority. In his ruling, Justice Kennedy held that the detainees should be entitled the right of habeas corpus. He clearly stated that the United States constitution entitled them the right of habeas corpus. For this reason, the suspension of habeas corpus on the basis of the military act of 2006 was unlawful. The five judges based their argument on the fact that America only maintained a de facto sovereignty in Cuba. On the other hand, Cuba was entitled to the ultimate sovereignty of the territory, where the prisoners had been detained. For this reason, the judges maintained that the prisoners were entitled to the right of habeas corpus as granting under chapter 9 of the constitution.

The judges who concurred with the ruling included Souter’s and Breyer, among others. In their argument, they argued that the suspension of the writ to the prisoners at Guantanamo was unconstitutional. He condemned the prolonged imprisonments the judges argued that this decision related to the history of the writ and was a fair judgment .

On the other hand, the four judges who dissented the ruling argued that the provisions made by the congress regarding the suspension of the writ were sufficient and the judiciary did not have a reason to intervene. He argued that the enemy combatants posed a serious threat to America at that time and in future. He pointed out that the majority of judges admitted that it was clear that US does not have any responsibility to citizens outside their sovereignty. In relation to the above case, the government cannot grant the writ to criminals.

Many people have raised different perspectives on the issue of habeas corpus. Some people believe that suspending the writ is against the constitution. In this part, I will explore the different perspectives in relation to habeas corpus. The justices of the Supreme Court held a different perceptive concerning the role of the president in relation to habeas corpus. The Supreme Court always believed that the president was wrong in his actions of suspending the writ. The high court always nullified the decisions. The commentators also thought that the president had turned out to be a dictator who could not listen to anyone; this is because the president constantly ignored the court orders.

The Supreme Court and other academicians perceived that the congress had given the executive the wrong powers. The congress had given the president powers in relation to habeas corpus and thus the president could suspend the writ any time. Some academicians and lawyers felt that the role played by the court in declaring all the acts of suspending habeas corpus unconstitutional was wrong and it illustrated their interference with the roles of the executive. The judges who dissented presented a strong argument that the Supreme Court interfered with security issues.

My personal on the issue between balance of personal liberties and security is that the security of a nation should be given preference. It is not right to sacrifice issues of national security in the name of liberty. However, the government should strike a balance between liberty and issues of national security. Their main aim should be to enhance security without ignoring the fundamental human rights.