Habeas Corpus and the War on Terror Essay

The War on Terror can readily be compared to WWI.  The following analysis will compare and contrast these two important historical occurrences.  It will also examine just a few of the many consequences of both.

Throughout American history, the writ of habeas Corpus has been the basis of the legal system of the United States, meant to preserve civil freedoms. Habeas corpus established a constitutional check on any dictatorial power that tried to present itself. It allowed any individual that was arrested to stand in front of the court to challenge whether they were being imprisoned according to the law of the land, ensuring their civil liberties weren 't threatened; however, only in times when the stability of a country was threatened could it be temporarily suspended. President Lincoln came into office in 1861 and by the

"So when Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas corpus in order to arrest those accused of treason, the "Peace Democrats" had more ammunition against the president. There was much controversy as to whether the president had the power to suspend habaes corpus, and it was argued that only Congress had that right. The writ of habeas corpus protects people from arbitrary arrest and detainment. The power to do so was both that of the legislative branch as well as the judicial branch. It was unclear whether the Philadelphia convention placed it in Article I, just to identify it or define it as a legislative function. Either way, Lincoln did so, and the suspension of the writ of Habeas corpus brought on thousands of arbitrary arrests. Many of those who were arrested were spies, foreigners and smugglers. The question is: Did Lincoln go too far and unlawfully exercise his executive powers to manipulate constitutional limits?

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

Under Article 1, section 9 of the constitution ‘the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.’ Habeas Corpus is the name of a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from unlawful detention of themselves or another person. Although many people may state that the bombing of Pearl

It is stated that conservatives view the writ as a means of escaping confinements by the guilty. It is noteworthy that the habeas corpus as a remedy existed in the former colonies even before the US was born. When the drafters of the constitution included the provision they fully well knew that the constitutional rights would have no meaning unless there was a provision of seeking relief from unjust detention. The congress must therefore be restricted in abridging the provision of

27. Habeas Corpus is the right for an individual not to be held in jail for more than 48 hours w/o a formal charge. Lincoln suspended this right during the war to lock up people who

“The Warren Court’s decision to expand federal habeas corpus helped fuel the criminal justice revolution of the 1960’s” (Stephens & Scheb II 2012,2008,2003). Habeas corpus is Latin for “you have the body” and the writ of habeas corpus is a “judicial order issued to an official holding someone in custody, requiring the official to bring the prisoner to court for the purpose of allowing the court to determine whether that person is being held legally” (Stephens & Scheb II 2012,2008,2003). For example in the case of Fay v. Noia (1963) a prisoner appealed to a federal district

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

Hamdi et al. v. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, et al. could prove the undoing of the Bush administration’s legal defense of the abuses at Guantanamo Bay. In this case, four British citizens are suing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as well as a host of Army and Air Force Generals and policy apparatchiks for allegedly authorizing the use of torture in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. The four were captured in Afghanistan, either by Americans or America’s ally, the Northern Alliance, and transported to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba where they were held for over two years. Their status there was not as enemy combatant, which guaranteed them certain protections under the Geneva Convention, but rather as

In this court case Clarence Gideon was denied a request to have an attorney who could represent him because he couldn’t afford one. Gideon was charged with breaking and entering into a pool hall in Panama City, Florida. In the court case the judge from Florida told him that they only gave attorneys to defendants who may be charged with the death penalty. Gideon was sentenced to five years in prison; he then filed for habeas corpus saying that his sentence was unconstitutional since he didn’t have a defense attorney his trial. The

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

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).

Ever since the beginning of the terrorist attacks on American soil, the War on Terror has been involved in the lives of Americans and nations near us. The War on Terror’s background originated through conflicts between warring countries in the Middle East; U.S. involvement started when a terrorist guided plane crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 in New York City. The attack was suspected to be the work of the middle-eastern terrorist group Al-Qaeda. The U.S. military, under the leadership of then commander-in-chief George W. Bush, declared a “War on Terror” on the terrorist group and the fighting began.