Habeas Corpus and the Use of Military Tribunals Essay

Under the due process perspective, the government’s central goal is to maximize one’s freedom and protect people from unjustified government power. The due process perspective follows an “obstacle course”, meaning it is complex and only qualified legal professionals can navigate through it. The due process values seek to benefit suspects and puts emphasis on legal guilt. In addition, it seeks to maximize human freedom and to protect people’s rights at all costs. Lastly, due process favors formality over informalities in hopes of avoiding human error and presumptions. –Chapter 2 Pages

The Writ of Habeas Corpus states that “the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion, the public safety may require it" (U.S. Constitution. Art. I, Sec. 9). In simpler terms, this means that the government, or its officials, is forbidden to arrest a citizen without allowing the case to be presented to a judge or court. The dictionary defines a writ as "a form of written command in the name of a court or other legal authority." Since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215, Habeas Corpus has been a pillar of law in America ("FAQs: What Is Habeas Corpus."). It

After Fort Semester in South Carolina was attacked, President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus by issuing presidential executive order on 27 April 1861, which was applicable across the entire US (Manuell, 2013). Through this order, Winfield Scott, who was the commanding general of the army was authorized to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, implying that citizens in Maryland could be arrested if they were found involved in violating the country’s laws. Consequently, thousands of people were detained in being suspected of sympathizing or spying for the Confederates (Dirck, 2010).

During America's most consequential wars, the United States government has restricted civil liberties of the American people despite the nation’s strong rooted foundation for preserving every citizen’s rights. When danger is an ever present factor for the nation due to war or conflict restrictions are often placed on some of the most basic freedoms and liberties. Perfect balancing of these restrictions is vital to the countries wellbeing. One of the most well-known examples of this type of restraint is Abraham Lincoln’s precedent of suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus and issuing martial law. Lincoln’s actions clearly violated the rights of the people that are guaranteed to them under the Constitution. While out of context it wouldn’t

The Writ of Habeas corpus is a very important part of fair practice and is necessary in society. It grants people the rights to know what charges are being held against them and if the charges are enough for them to be imprisoned. This goes along with the idea that the burden of the proof rest on plaintiff. The idea

POL 201 Week 5 Final Paper Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror

The civil war gave birth to some of the darkest days and actions in American history, it saw the deprivation of civil liberties. Lincoln had the profound mission to persevere the union- at any and all cost. When his troops were ambushed and blockaded from reaching the South and defending the North President Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, the undeniable right by the Constitution of the United States to have a charge laid and a speedy trial should an individual be arrested. By unilaterally, immediately revoking the Writ Lincoln empowered himself and his forces to arrest anyone who stood in the way of them without any need or time wasted to investigate, charge and prep trial. While this undoubtedly allowed the forces to seek reunification

To understand Habeas Corpus and how it has played its part in the war on terror, a look at what it is and how it started should be looked at. Habeas Corpus, (“you should have the body”), is an old legal procedure that protects against unlawful and indefinite imprisonment. It is issued by a judge and does not determine whether the individual is guilty or innocent, but whether they are illegally imprisoned. If the charges are considered valid, the individual will go to trial, if not, the person goes free.

In addition, the constitutional rights of the people were restricted during the Civil War. As Confederate troops marched towards Washington D.C. and rioters among the Border States gained momentum, President Abraham Lincoln sought to diminish the movement of both groups. To do this, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus. The doctrine of habeas corpus is the right to bring a prisoner before a court in order to determine if imprisonment is necessary. President Lincoln suspended this right in order to detain “disloyal persons” and stop the spread of disloyalty throughout the Union. Although the suspension of habeas corpus is protected under the Constitution, President Lincoln abused his executive powers. He was not given the power to suspend

Constitution states that “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended,

As is easily gathered from the introduction, there is a marked difference between "rights" and "responsibilities" when speaking of the Constitution. The former refers to the rights of the citizenry (both what they are allowed to and what the government cannot do to them) while the latter refers to what the government must do to remain compliant. The original iteration of the Constitution, both in Article 1, Section 9 and Article 1, Section 10 both covered habeas corpus. Basically, unless a war-time situation demands it, due process must always be in place. One notable example of it being suspended was during the Civil War when President Lincoln did so (Archives.gov, 2012).

history of the U.S. Constitution that it’s guaranteed right to Habeas Corpus has been suspended

The US Government’s reaction to 9/11 suspended civil liberties for many people, whether terrorist-affiliated or not, out of fear of another attack. The common justification for such events is national security, and it is common rhetoric for politicians to claim that there is a tradeoff between civil liberties and national security. I seek to argue that the military commissions for trying terrorist suspects did not protect national security, but merely infringed upon civil liberties. The debate remains as to whether other situations might justify some infringement on the basis of the tradeoff argument, but military commissions after 9/11 do not offer a favorable outlook for the tradeoff position.

Habeas corpus is an important part of the Constitution because it prevents a prisoner being held for an indefinite amount of time long without having formal charges filed against them. This is important in restricting the ability of governments to deny personal freedoms.

Do you remember where you were on September 11, 2001? I was working as a Personal Care Provider in a Senior Home at Newport, NJ. Do you remember the feeling you felt when you saw the planes crashing on the Twin Towers in New York? I remember feeling powerless. I wanted to do something to help out the people trapped in those towers. It was a horrible feeling not to be able to help them. Right after that, President Bush declared the War on Terror and many of our troop members were sent overseas to defend our country and to try to catch those involved on this act of terror. Many people were detained and sent to Guantanamo