imprisoned be subject to cruel or unusual punishment” (Irate Citizen Action Network, 2005). After the Patriot Act was implemented over 1,200 people were arrested and jailed in connection with the September 11th attacks. Most of those arrested were Arabs and Muslims and were US citizens. They had nothing more than visa violations. Some of these people were in jail for several months with no charges being filed against them and they could not even see their families or friends. Some of these people were even deported; which is cruel and unusual punishment within itself (Cronhls, 2003).
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 unlawful combatants. They were held without being charged of a crime, without legal representation and were never even brought before a military judge until Rasul v. Bush established their Habeas Corpus rights. They were released in March 2004 without being charged.
A Writ of Habeas Corpus is an authoritative order forcing governments to provide the “body” of the detainee in which the legality of their detention and individual liberties will be challenged. Historically associated with civil liberty violation and the injustice of illegally detaining potentially enemies of the state, jurisdictional issues regarding their detaining location have made justice difficult to administer and deliver. Detaining enemies for their participation, involvement, and/or ties to threats of terror towards the United States will result the confinement of combatants, as solidified by the US Constitution, however, to what extent will they be forced to stay?. Residents of Guantanamo Bay are just; enemies of the state, accused individual that have been arrested and detain with minimal civil human rights to our jurisdictional due process that we American’s hold dear; with only a Writ of Habeas Corpus as their life line to legality and freedom. Although controversial in its conception and implementation by US presidential administration, judiciary members have cordially interpreted cases of questionable detention and the legality of doing so. It is truly unfortunate when individuals are tossed into confinement illegally with no help and/or the promise of their restorative freedoms (ACLU, 2014).
The Great Chief Justice: John Marshall and the Rule of Law by Charles F. Hobson examines the judicial career of John Marshall, as well as the legal culture that helped to shape his political beliefs and his major constitutional opinions. The author sources much of his information from the formal opinions that Marshall issued during his judicial career. From these writings, Hobson presents Marshall 's views on law and government and provides explanations for what in Marshall 's life influenced those beliefs.
...itution, there is an allotment for the suspension of habeas corpus if there is an instance of rebellion, which the Civil War was. Adams’ and Wilson’s policies, however, blatantly defied the Constitution. Although it is true that they did it in good intent, it’s similar to a poor person robbing a gas station to get some food; it may be with good intentions, but it is still wrong. The Constitution is what we, as Americans, have accepted as our unbreakable laws. In our eyes, the Constitution is almost sacred. So, when Presidents decide that their laws can override what we believe to be just, it lessens the value of the Constitution. It is my belief that in times of crisis or war, when national survival is at stake, the upholding of our Constitution is more imperative than ever, to prove to American citizens that our government will stand by what they have promised us.
"I shall show you what happens to people who defy the laws of the land! In the tribunal everybody is equal, here there is no regard for rank or position. The great torture shall be applied to you!" (194)
Over two hundred years ago, the founding fathers of this great nation signed their names to the Declaration of Independence, sending a message to Great Britain that they were tired of being subservient to a monarch who had no respect for his people. These extraordinary men understood the concept of liberty and embraced it with great passion. They were all too familiar with the consequences of a government with excess power. In order to prevent America from returning to the ways of Great Britain, they crafted one of the greatest documents ever written, the Constitution of the United States of America. Contained in the Constitution is the Bill of Rights which details the rights the citizens of the United States of America are guaranteed. Unfortunately, during the past two hundred years, politicians seem to have lost focus on the principle of personal liberty. One of the most recent examples of this came with the passage of Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001. The USA PATRIOT Act is a crucial attack to the rights of American citizens and a disgrace to the men who fought for their freedoms in the Revolutionary War.
“The founders who crafted our Constitution and Bill of Rights were careful to draft a constitution of limited powers- one that would protect Americans’ liberties at all times”. Al Franken was a strong believer in a powerful government that at the same time protects the citizens natural rights. However, some citizens have decided to test the law, thus creating a variety of new precedents. The Constitution is a body of work that sets precedents and establishes the powers and duties of a government; it also created a Supreme Court that establishes and enforces the law. Back in the 1700s, the citizens living in the colonies did not agree with Britain’s form of government. With that in mind,. the Founding Fathers made sure that the Constitution was a social contract; something that makes sure the citizens and the government are on the same page to guarantee that no individual rights are infringed upon. When the Constitution was written, many of the federalists feared that the citizen’s rights were being taken away; therefore, the Bill of Rights was established to secure rights for the people and guard the abuse of power. The Bill of Rights however, only covers the first ten amendments; the next seventeen were created to enhance parts of the constitution. Over the last two hundred years, the supreme court has heard many cases regarding a variety of subjects. Perhaps the most controversial aspects of the twenty-seven amendments are the second amendment’s right to bear arms, exhibited in the District of Columbia v. Heller and United States v. Miller; the Fourth Amendment’s protection from illegal searches and seizures, displayed by the cases Mapp v. Ohio and Weeks v. United States; finally, the Fourteenth Amendments affirmative act...
Cutler, Llyod N. "If it aint broke keep your amendments off my constitution." Washington Monthly, 1 Sept. 1997. Bigchalk Library. Proquest. Centreville Hs Lib.; Clifton, Va. 12 May. 2005 www.library.bigchalk.com.
Acts of terrorism vary in scale and amount of destruction. For many people still today the memory of 9/11 still drags on and this has a major effect on the way process people feel just be followed in seeking justice for these heinous acts. As I stated previously, over 2,977 people were victim to the acts of a terrorist organization. Al-Qaida, the organization responsible had a long history of committing such acts but none had been on a scale this large and in a western country. The organization was founded between 1988 and 1989 and its intent was to promote the use of Jihad as a tactic to create profound global instability and allow the implementation of sharia law. In a case similar to Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld a former