Habeas Corpus Essay

September 11, 2011, started like every normal day in New York City. People rushing to work, children going to school, and people taking a morning walk or jog. But no one knew that this day would turn into a horror film. A terrorist organization call al-Qaeda hijacked airplanes and hammered them into the World Trade Centers North and South Tower along with the Pentagon in Washington D.C. The September 11, 2001, attacks changed America forever (9/11 Attacks - 102 minutes That Changed America).

     The United States of America is a country that is based upon a principle of balancing the rights of an individual, while still preserving public order. The U.S. Constitution (specifically the Bill of Rights) guarantees every American certain Individual rights. Some of these rights include; freedom from unreasonable search and seizures, a right to due process of law, and protection against cruel and unusual punishment (The 4th, 5th and 8th Amendments). Historically the criminal justice system has preserved these rights of peopled accused of crimes. However on September 11, 2001, the United States became the victim of the largest terrorist attack the World has ever seen. According to Schmalleger in 2003, that

After the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001 the United States became a very different place. This drastic change was caused by the initial emotional reactions that American citizens, as well as government leaders had towards the tragic event. The government, in an effort to assure that these events never happen again passed the USA PATRIOT Act, which is an acronym that stands for the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. The major goal of this act is to combat terrorism by giving the government more leeway in what areas they are allowed to use their surveillance tools and also to what circumstances these tools can be used. The major issue that arise with this act are the fact that many of the act can be seen as unconstitutional.

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

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).

In October 1864 Milligan was arrested by federal agents under orders from a Union Army commander. Milligan was later placed on trial before a military tribunal and was found guilty and sentenced to death by hanging. President Johnson also sustained Milligan’s execution. Milligan in response petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court claiming that he should not have been tried by a military tribunal and that the president should not have suspended habeas corpus. The court did not know how to apply the law and requested the review of the Supreme Court. Milligan argued that the power to suspend habeas corpus belongs to Congress not the president and that the president does not have absolute control over martial law. The United States argued that the president has the authority to suspend habeas corpus from the constitutional power of commander in chief and that while the constitution limits the presidents war

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

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.

Each country suffered losses; the damage done affected the United States just as much as it was intended to affect Afghanistan and Iraq. Due to the sustained hostility and additional losses, not only was America at war with another country, they were also at war with themselves. Conflict arose within the nation between its citizens and their government; those that were not at war struggled with their government breaching the laws that protected them and their rights (Zinn, 2007). On October 26, 2001 President Bush passed the Patriot Act which essentially allowed the Department of Justice to hold people, in most cases noncitizens, on nothing more than the grounds of suspicion (Zinn, 2007). Tellingly, this act was abused and many people were unsafe in the country that once offered democracy, freedom, and protection. There was nothing rational about the interrogations or trials that occurred following the Patriot Act, it was all very intentionally selective. Many immigrants, Muslims in particular, were immediately suspected of terrorism or terrorist connections and were detained for months regardless of the lack of evidence found (Warren, 2011). Although several people had dared to speak out against the unjust manner of the act, their voices went unheard and many of those who publicly questioned and criticized Bush were called for interrogation regardless of their citizenship (Zinn, 2007). Not

After the events of September 11, 2001, the United States had a unique dilemma. America was engaged in what would be called a “War on Terror”. This new conflict was unlike any in American history. Previously, in the context of war the United States had always fought a nation or group that had defined boundaries as to where they resided. This new conflict went away from these rules of the past. Terrorist groups were not bound to a region, but were instead united by an ideal. September 11 marked the first time in which terrorism would rise to the forefront of the nation’s agenda. This emergent wave of conflict required a different strategy than the those of the past because of the unorthodox nature of the opponent. One of the major innovations fostered by the “War on Terror” was the expansion of torture. The dramatic rise in terrorism sparked the unethical advancement of interrogation techniques in order to more effectively acquire information. The emergence of the “War on Terror” required government officials acquire intelligence in a new way thus spawning the emergence of “enhanced interrogation” methods, however, the morality of these techniques would come into question as they were revealed to the public.