The Great Writ of Liberty"

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

At the beginning of the war on terror, President Bush’s handling of the situation was very popular. He insured everyone in the country that justice would be carried out and that the groups and individuals that helped with the attacks against the United States. In her paper, (Fisher) cited President Bush’s order as “any individual ‘not a United States citizen’ who the president determines that there is ‘reason to believe’ (1) ‘is or was a member of the organization known as al Qaida,’ (2) ‘has engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit, acts of international terrorism, or acts in preparation therefor, that have caused, threaten to cause, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy,’ or (3) has ‘knowingly harbored one or more individuals described in subparagraph (1) and (2)’" (pg 504).

Since the advent of human government, one of the principle fears held by the constituents of the government has always been to prevent any form of tyranny or abuse within it. Tyranny can be loosely described as one person or a group of people having total power in a government leading to the subjugation and oppression of people’s rights. Many new nations wish to eliminate any aspect of their government that may eventually lead to tyranny. The United States was no different in this respect; the framers of the Constitution longed to have no signs of tyranny in their government because they had gone to war with Britain for that very reason. In 1787, a group of fifty-five delegates came from

“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

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

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

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.

Provide the class with the details of the project (location, acres restored, methods used, species benefited if available, etc.). Be sure to integrate what you find with what you are learning in your text and other readings and supplement it with additional research.

The United States Government has no problem with getting out on technicalities. Thus it is not surprising that we have the same human rights problems now that we did during the Salem Witch Trials. In Guantanamo Bay, people accused of terrorism are held without conviction for as long as 15 years. The United States Government is allowed to do this without charging the accused because it is not United States territory. Although this may not be morally correct, it certainly serves the purpose of getting people to confess, and holding people that are believed to be a threat to this country. There are plenty of similarities in due process shared between Guantanamo Bay and Salem, Massachusetts.

The writ of habeas corpus provides individuals with protection against arbitrary and wrongful imprisonment. But it does not necessarily protect other rights, such as the entitlement to a fair trial. In our country anyone accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This seems to be the case unless you are accused of terrorism, then you are held outside of the US and are not subject to the same laws or privileges allowed within US jurisdiction.

On U.S. territory and the government argues that they therefore have neither constitutional rights nor the rights guaranteed under the Geneva Convention, the international treaty governing detention during wartime. Basic principles like due process,

Following the 9/11 attacks and the Congressional statement giving President Bush the power to seek out and detain terrorists, the Bush Administration asserted the need for an area of detention for these non-state actors. Certain criteria, however, had to be met to satisfy the administration and overall public safety of American citizens. These criteria include a desolate location out of U.S. Territory as to prevent detainee escapes and allow loopholes in treatment of detainees and length of detention. On the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base, these criteria were fully met: it is surrounded by water, as to prevent

This paper will explore three separate cases, providing facts about the apprehension and detention of enemy combatants, assessing the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and will explain whether any rights were denied or granted in contrast with each other. Anyone engaging in aggressive or hostile behavior towards a country is held to several political and constitutional legalities as explored in the three following cases.

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

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is originally a naval base that was once used to house detention facilities for Haitian and Cuban refugees fleeing to the United States. It was also used as a refueling station for Navy ships. It was then converted into a high level detention facility to house enemy troops captured in the War on Terror campaign by Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfield. It has three main camps that house the prisoners. These prisoners of war were later referred to as enemy combatants. They were excluded from the prisoner of war statutes of the Geneva Convention because of their involvement in a foreign terrorist organization and therefore earning themselves the title of terrorists. The Guantanamo Bay Detention Center served as the perfect location to send these terrorists. It allowed the United States to strip them of any due process or protection that is provided by US law. Due to its location, being in foreign territory they are only subjected to military law. They are close enough for them to be monitored without interference of intentional agencies or international oversight. Furthermore, the US Government is holding these men without due process because they are deemed too dangerous to be released into the public because of their associations with terrorist organizations and possession of valuable information relating to National Security such as location of key members of a terrorist groups, whereabouts. However, the United States cannot release those