Taking a Look at Writs of Habeas Corpus

“It is an ancient English legal concept that empowers judges to order imprisoned persons to be brought into core to determine if they are being legally held” (Lincoln and the Writ of Liberty). This quote comes from “Lincoln and the Writ of Liberty” showing how the writ of habeas of corpus allows a fair trial for all criminals. The Constitution and Bill of Rights includes accused persons the right to fair and speedy trial, a jury of peers, and protection from cruel or unusual punishment. “On September 24, 1862, Lincoln issued a proclamation unprecedented in American history. He suspended the writ of liberty everywhere in the United States. The suspensions applied to Confederate spies or to those who aided the rebel cause, interfered with military enlistments, resisted the draft, or were ‘guilty of any disloyal practice” (Lincoln and the Writ of Liberty). Mrs. Surratt was accused to be an aid in the rebel cause and the suspension of the writ of liberty affected her trial immensely. Mary Surratt’s execution was not equitable because she did not have access to the basic rights given to U.S.

In August of 2002, without consulting Congress, the Bush administration changed the definition of torture by military standards to allow for previously illegal interrogation techniques. (Inside Guantanamo) Bush lost a lot of respect from American citizens for doing this on his own instead of consulting Congress because it added a lot of suspicion that he was trying to hide something. The Pentagon organized the interrogation techniques into three categories. The first one included yelling and deception techniques and the second included sensory deprivation, isolation, stress positions, extensive interrogation, hooding, clothing removal, and the use of phobias. The third and most severe category included waterboarding and even death threats. (Greenberg 221) Bush wanted justice to be served to the men who planned and carried out the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He thought the families of the thousands killed that day deserved that justice. Soon after, President Bush sent 14 men to Guantanamo Bay so that justice could be served to them by the military commissions he had proposed. They were to be put under the custody of the CIA where they would get what Bush thought they deserved and thanks to the Bybee Memo, Bush had complete, unlimited power when it came to core war matters such as this. While constitutional, the actions of the Bush administration as he went behind Congress’s back and came up with a new definition for torture

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?

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).

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

“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

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

On September 15, 1863 President Abraham Lincoln temporarily suspended Habeas Corpus, which is the right to due process. Anyone who was a confederate sympathiser or spoke out against the war were arrested, put in jail and weren 't given a trial until after the war was over. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus because he wanted to suppress dissenters to strengthen the War effort. More than 13,000 civilians in the Union were arrested under martial law throughout the War. Lincoln viewed his action as justified since he believed the country was in a time of crisis.

The Supreme Court speaks not only through its rulings in cases argued before it, but also through its choice not to hear certain cases -- the ones denied certiorari, in legal lingo. By refusing to hear claims brought by victims of Bush-era torture and detention practices, and failing to decisively reject the government's array of bad excuses for denying them a modicum of justice, the Court in recent years has sent an appalling message of indifference and impunity. These missing cases constitute a profound stain on the court's record, and they are worth recalling on this week's tenth anniversary of John Roberts's swearing-in as Chief

(many argue that if he has the authority to detain then perhaps he has authority to set up military commission as commander and chief) The laws of war state that if you violate the laws of war you can also be tried by a military commission during hostilities). Furthermore, the Ex parte Milligan case the court held that Habeas corpus although is a writ that is used to bring U.S. Citizen in state court into federal court for a criminally convicted. According to the courts holding Habeas corpus, Congress may authorize the executive to suspend the writ of habeas corpus when public safety requires it. Additionally, Milligan was a U.S. citizen not associated with the enemy forces, he was in the United States he was not outside the war zone and

Under the Bush Administration, beginning with the election of President Bush in 2000 and running until early 2009, Guantanamo Bay was filled with suspected 9/11 terrorists from the Taliban and al Qaeda due to the relatively recent outbreak of the war on terror. Large steps were taken by the Bush Administration toward near guarantees of containing those responsible for the War, which can be summed up in a human rights article by Martin Flaherty, “[…] the Bush Administration adopted what it asserted were three ‘necessary and appropriate’ means that would serve as principal ways to pursue the ‘Global War on Terror,’” (36). These three means were indefinite detention, harsh interrogation methods, and military trials. Focusing on military trials,

In the United States, one of the major methods in obtaining crucial information has been through the use of Guantanamo Bay. While many have condemned of the torture that is believed to occur there, not only does Guantanamo Bay comply with national and international standards, but it also complies with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (Meese 1) which states