Habeas Corpus: The Ultimate Writ of Liberty Essay

In era of struggle, many quick and less-traveled decisions argon inevitable. The decisions the President has to arrive must be in the best interest of the nation, and of the world. Although war is unpopular with many sight, it is unavoidable in certain circumstances. During wartime, many American people want known adversary combatants to possess their pay offs upheld small-arm being detained. Unfortunately, this is non always feasible. One has to understand that the taking of the indecorousness of a handful of people to save the lives of thousands, or even millions of people is an unavoidable symbolise. When a citizen of a remote country, or a citizen of America, who has turned to act of menaceism, goes to war with America, the rights given(p) to American citizens by the character should be denied. Wartime is never pleasant and it has the latent to causes the destruction of billions of dollars worth of property. However, the loss of life is much more scourge than the loss of property. During war, there are rightful(a) enemy combatants captured by the debate force and held for information or as bargaining tools. These lawful enemy combatants are known are prisoners of war (POW). If the enemy combatant whom is captured is not entitled to prisoner of war status because he or she does not meet the definition of a lawful combatant as naturalize by the three Geneva Convention, the prisoner is known as an illicit enemy combatant (EC). In 2001, when President George W. shrub declared war on terrorism, the war was not against a country but against a particular group. Under the rules of the Third Geneva Convention, terrorists captured during the war on terrorism do not fit the criteria to be labeled a POW. Therefore, these combatants are considered unlawful enemy combatants not bound by the protection of the Third Geneva Convention. Since the war on terror started in 2011, there turn out been a number of lawsuits appointd against the Am erican G everywherenment claiming the detainees at Guantanamo Bay were having their rights to Habeas star violated.A writ of Habeas school principal instructs a government, police, or anyone who is detaining an individual from his or her liberty, to immediately bring the accused before the court so the uprightness of the delay may be examined (A brief narrative of habeas corpus, 2005). However, President provide declared the detainees as unlawful enemy combatants, thusly denying their right to Habeas school principal. In the get together States Constitution under Article One, particle 9, clause 2, it reads, The perquisite of the Writ of Habeas principal sum shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion, the public safety may require it. (Transcript of Constitution of the United States, 1787). The primitive right given to detainees by the United States Constitution, also known as Writ of Habeas Corpus, is nothing pertly to the world. The origins o f Habeas Corpus can be date back to British common law (Schultz, 2011). The Habeas Corpus Act was passed by British Parliament in 1679 and is said to have origins of Anglo-Saxon descent dating back to the middle ages (A brief history of habeas corpus, 2005). According to Sir William Blackstone, the number 1 use of Habeas Corpus can be dated back to 1305. However, there were other Writs with the same influence being used in the 12th century, which precedes the Magna Carta in 1215 (A brief history of habeas corpus, 2005). Habeas Corpus was first established in the United States by statute in the Judiciary Act of 1789. This lawful Writ applied only to detainees in custody by officials of the decision maker Branch of the federal government, and not to those held by state governments.However, Article One, Section 9, clause 2 does not give the right to detainees to exercise their right to the Writ of Habeas Corpus rather it instructs Congress against suspending a persons right unless it is in a case of rebellion, invasion, or public safety. Therefore, in America, if a person is being detained and they do not feel the detention is legal, the detainee has the right to file a Writ of Habeas Corpus. There have been only two instances when the President found it necessary to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act in light of civil rights (Robinson, 2011). In the early days of the United States Civil War, President Abraham capital of Nebraska suspended Writs of Habeas Corpus on April 27, 1861. President capital of Nebraska felt it was necessary to suspend Habeas Corpus along the railroad line between Philadelphia and Washington. Eventually, in the fall of 1862, President Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus nationwide (Robinson, 2011). In recent history, President George W. scrubbing suspended Writs of Habeas Corpus for the enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay by signing into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Both Presidents came under fire for their decisions. Ho wever, Lincolns was taking the right of Habeas Corpus away from American citizens while Bush took the right away from non-American citizens or citizens who were in rebellion against the United States. One of the biggest arguments is whether enemy combatants have the right to file a Writ of Habeas Corpus in a federal court.Although Habeas Corpus is a vestigial right given to the American people in the Constitution, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 brought new theories to the forefront. The Bush Administrations choice to detain enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay without trial tested the latitude and assurance of this underlying right. The Bush Administration established long ago their view that foreign terrorists are not entitled to American basic rights (Justice and Gitmo The high courts decision to deal habeas corpus for detainees is a step toward restoring trampled freedoms, 2007). The Supreme speak to heard the case Boumediene v. Bush and do a ruling on this case o n June 12, 2008. Boumediene v. Bush was a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed in a civilian court of the United States on behalf of Lakhdar Boumediene. Boumediene was a naturalized citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina being held as an enemy combatant by the United States at Guantanamo Bay. When the ruling came down from the Supreme flirt, it was a five to four with the bulk holding the detainees at Guantanamo Bay did have the right to file Writs of Habeas Corpus under the United States Constitution.There were three factors taken into consideration when determine the final decision the citizenship and status, along with the adequacy of the process that status was determined, the sites where apprehension and detention took place, and the obstacles in resolving the detainees right to the Writ (Boumediene v. Bush, 2008). The Supreme cost ruled the United States, by virtue of its jurisdiction and control over Guantanamo Bay, the country maintains de facto sovereignty over the territory, while Cu ba retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory. Therefore, the aliens detained at Guantanamo Bay were enemy combatants and were entitled to the Writ of Habeas Corpus (Boumediene v. Bush, 2008). This ruling reversed the cast down courts decision, which stated that constitutional rights do not extend to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Associate Justice Kennedy wrote the depression of the court, with Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer joining. Justice Souter also filed a concurring opinion with Justice Ginsburg, and Breyer joining. However, foreman Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion with Scalia, Thomas, and Alito joining. Justice Scalia also filed a dissenting opinion with Roberts, Thomas and Alito joining. In Chief Justice Roberts dissenting, he states the Boumediene v. Bush case should have not even made it to the Supreme Court for a ruling on Habeas Corpus until the lower court first decided if the detainees had a legal right to file in a United Stat es Court (Boumediene v. Bush, 2008). In a time of war, the president is given an overwhelming amount of latitude in devising decisions. One enormous decision that has to be made is the taking of liberty from an individual. With the understanding that thousands to millions of lives could be saved by taking the liberty of a handful of people, it is, at times, an unavoidable act. Constitutional rights should become voided when an act of terror is unleashed on United States soil by either a foreign citizen or a citizen of America. Being able to commit a terrorist act and then hide under the protection of the civil liberties of another country is nothing more than an act of a coward.ReferencesA brief history of Habeas Corpus. (2005, March 09). Retrieved November 04, 2012, from BBC News http//news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4329839.stm Boumediene v. Bush, No. 061195 (Supreme Court of the United States June 12, 2008). Justice and Gitmo The high courts decision to weigh Habeas Corpus for detainees is a step toward restoring trampled freedoms. (2007, July 08). Los Angeles Times, p. M.2. Retrieved from http//search.proquest.com/docview/422272051?accountid=32521 on November 05, 2012 Robinson, K. (2011, June 26). Historians wont confidence game Lincoln for suspension of Habeas Corpus. McClatchy Tribune Business News. Retrieved from http//search.proquest.com/docview/873651368?accountid=32521 Schultz, D. (2011, July). Habeas Corpus after 9/11 confronting Americas new global detention system. Choice, 48(11), pp. 2190-2191. Retrieved November 05, 2012 from http//search.proquest.com/docview/877038974?accountid=32521Transcript of Constitution of the United States. (1787). Retrieved from Our Documents http//www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=9&page=transcript