Introduction
The Foundation for Economic Education provides that since its inception, the right of Habeas Corpus has been “widely considered to be the cornerstone of individual liberty.” (McElroy, 2009) This right is invoked through civil action, often enforced by a court order, and usually demands for a custodian, more often than not the government, to produce a detained individual. It is worth noting that the purpose of habeas corpus is not to essentially to prove the innocence of the detainee, but rather, the lawfulness of their detention; that is, whether it meets the standards prescribed under the law of the land,. As such, if detainment is dimmed consistent with the law, then the individual is subjected to due process. On the other hand, if it is invalid, then the custodian is forced under the law to set the detained person free. In the years after September 11th, 2001, the US government stepped up its efforts against terror, declaring an all-out war on the vice. The purpose of this paper is to analyze how the right to habeas corpus is applied in the context of detained terrorism suspects. How does the US Supreme Court interpret the right of habeas corpus with regard to individuals characterized as enemy combatants?
Historical Evolution of Habeas Corpus
Habeas Corpus is interpreted in English to mean “you may have the body” (Rutherford Institute, 2014). It has its origins from English common law, and first appeared on the Magna Carta in 1215 (Rutherford Institute, 2014). In England, habeas corpus derives its powers from Article 39 of the Magna Carta, whereby it states that “no freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized, or outlawed or exiled, or in any way harmed, nor will we go upon or send upon him, save by the ...
... middle of paper ...
... Accessed on 9th June, 2014 from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/washington/13scotus.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Hawke, A. (2007). Primer: Guantanamo Detainees’ Rights. The US Department of Justice. Available online from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11600605
McElroy, W. (2009). The Great Writ Then and Now. The Foundation for Economic Education. Accessed on 9th June, 2014 from http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-great-writ-then-and-now
Osborne, R. J. (2008). The Writ of Habeas Corpus, The Constitution and Abraham Lincoln, War President. Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute. Accessed on 9th June, 2014 from http://www.cis.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/2008/1/08.01.01.x.html
The Rutherford Institute. (2014). Habeas Corpus. The Rutherford Institute. Accessed on 9th June, 2014 from https://www.rutherford.org/constitutional_corner/habeas_corpus/
Reagan Hood The Suspension of Habeas Corpus Word Count: 9/15/16 Habeas Corpus is a writ requiring a person under arrest be brought before a judge into court to secure the person’s release, unless lawful grounds are shown for their detention. On April 27, 1861 Abraham Lincoln suspended this writ during the American Civil War. habeas corpus is a very important legal principle. It being included in the main body of the Constitution shows how important this was to the framers of this country
Evidence textbook, the Writ of Habeas Corpus is: an order in writing, issued in the name of the government by a judge of competent jurisdiction, and directed to a person who has another in his custody or detains him in confinement which commands him to bring such person so detained before the judge, at the time and place appointed, and to state the reasons for which he/she has imprisoned or otherwise deprived him/her of liberty. The Writ of Habeas Corpus is one of the many important
Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror Habeas corpus is a way of determining whether those that are jailed have been jailed through the legal processes and if the reason behind the jailing is legal. This paper will discuss how the administration led by Bush kept prisoners at GITMO during the war on terror. The civil rights of the prisoners were never considered since the place where they were kept was beyond the reach of the constitution of the United States of America. It was the
Amber Shrum Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus research paper Word Count: 10/27/17 Habeas Corpus can be defined as a writ requiring a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court, especially to secure the person's release unless lawful grounds are shown for their detention. During the Civil War Abraham Lincoln had suspended this law. His reasoning behind it was that of contingent of Maryland officials were intending to destroy the railroad tracks between
his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Within months of taking the presidential oath, Lincoln ordered the suspension of habeas corpus, citing “supra-constitutional reasons for taking unilateral executive action.” Attorney General Edward Bates’ defense of Lincoln’s actions regarding habeas corpus in which he refers to it as a privilege rather than a guaranteed civil liberty serves as basis for proving the illegitimacy of this act. If the writ of habeas corpus, which protects citizens from
wartime, the government can suspend Habeas Corpus, which prevents unfair arrests and punishments. Suspending Habeas Corpus is taking your rights to a fair trial, and throwing them in the trash. As you are probably assuming, the suspension of habeas corpus has been a controversial topic. You must also be asking yourself, “why take away the people's’ rights, wasn’t the United States built on the rights of citizens?”. Some people see that suspending Habeas Corpus could be useful during a war because
order to determine whether suspending habeas corpus is ethical or not in order to prevent a group of people from being killed, the follow questions must be answered: What is Habeas Corpus? In what ways was the right of Habeas Corpus suspended in the movie? What makes a course of action ethical or unethical? How is the ethical theory applied to the situations in the movie? One must use the movie, The Siege, to answer to these questions appropriately. Habeas Corpus began in England in 1215, when King
life-long protection of the writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a court order person or agency holding someone in custody to deliver the imprisoned individual to the court issuing the order and to show a valid reason for that person’s detention. Basically, the writ of habeas corpus ensures due process for every citizen of the United States. Throughout our country’s existence, there’s been plenty of controversy surrounding the suspension of habeas corpus and wartime powers of an executive
Introduction 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
Amistad is about a mutiny in 1839 aboard a slave ship, La Amistad, which eventually comes to port in New England. The West Africans who have commandeered the ship are taken into custody and the plot revolves around who "owns" them or if, indeed, they should be freed. This sets up the main event of the film, a courtroom drama about rights and origins, with the required flashbacks to the voyage and the gruesome conditions aboard the ship. The problem with this approach is that we learn less about the
of power and people may be wrongfully punished. All of these things are warning signs that democracy is at risk During the civil war, the government did many questionable things including President Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus, which in Latin means, "Produce the body", states the holders of a prisoner must release the person to the court to face the charges brought against the person. This writ means that a party cannot hold a person prisoner indefinitely; they
A Critique of the Real Lincoln The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, by Thomas J. DiLorenzo completely shatters the illusion of the 16th President as the liberator of the slaves. DiLorenzo provides convincing evidence for Lincoln’s overt racism as expressed in his documented views on racial supremacy as stated in his desire to colonize all American blacks outside the United States (p. 4); Lincoln’s views were matched by the majority in the North who
Robbery of Freedom: The Ultimate Injustice WRONGFULLY CONVICTED AND IMPRISONED IN ALABAMA My story is told to you as honestly and as accurately as can be. Over the years, I have felt like I've had to 'defend' something, but I have realized that, as bizarre as it is, just tell the truth and let that be it! I was released in April 10,2001, and my quest for justice has only gained momentum. I am the victim of small town politics where the locals have met very little resistance in doing things
in America since its founding. In 1798, President Adams responded to the threat of war with France with the Sedition Act, which made opposition to the government practically illegal. During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus to prevent disputes regarding the legality of arrests. President Roosevelt authorized Japanese internment during World War II. Clearly, our government has often felt at liberty to put personal freedoms on hold for safety and control. Of course
Thomas Dilorenzo was born August 8 , 1954 in Pennsylvania. In The Real Lincoln , Thomas Dilorenzo breaks down the honest agenda and task of Abraham Lincoln. Often Lincoln was looked at as a heroic ender of slavery and a strong protector of our Constitution. Born February 12 , 1809, Lincoln was a very determined and hard working man who was determined to get the job done no matter what it took. Even if some of his choices weren't the safest route to go he would enforce his commands and make sure his