The Absolute Right to Habeas Corpus

The Absolute Right to Habeas Corpus

Since the founding of the United States, Habeas Corpus has been a fundamental right afforded to all peoples within the nation's borders. Habeas Corpus is the right of an individual to challenge the legality of their imprisonment, arrest, or detainment. Since the 9/11 attacks, the right to a writ of Habeas Corpus has come under fire for those accused of being terrorists. This has created an ethical difficult situation for leaders in the United States. Is indefinite detention of those suspected of terrorist acts ethical? There are two main viewpoints on the issue. The first is Consequentialist that believes the ends achieved through indefinite detention justify the means is morally right. The second view is that of Nonconsequentalist believe that indefinite detention is inherently morally wrong. I personally disagree with the practice of indefinite detention and believe that all of those held illegally by The US government should be granted a writ of Habeas Corpus. I will explore the arguments of both of those who morally agree and disagree, examine the inconsistencies in both arguments.

The Consequentialist Position

Those who believe that indefinitely detaining terrorist suspects is the only way to prevent future terrorist attacks by that individual, ethically adhere to a certain viewpoint. Utilitarianism holds as its central tenant that as long as a specific action creates greater amounts of happiness than unhappiness, that specific action is morally justified (Vaughn, 2012). Consequentialists believe that the sacrifice of a few individual's rights is worth the safety of the majority. They argue that using civilian courts in order to prosecute terrorist suspects puts the United States in d...

... middle of paper ...

...entialist view, which believes that America's use of indefinite detention is justified when it keeps Americans safe. The second viewpoint is that of the nonconsequentalists, which believe that indefinite detention is wrong no matter what the consequences. I personally believe that the nonconsequentialist view is the correct one. In order for the United States to be able to lead the free world, we must extoll a coherent set of values that emphasize our integrity. As the third world continues to develop The US can no longer expect to lead by the stick, but must instead lead by its virtue..

Works Cited

Bhatte, K. (2014, February 5). The hypocrisy of human rights watch. Retrieved from http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-hypocrisy-of-human-rights-watch/5367940 Vaughn, L. (2012). Doing ethics: Moral reasoning and contemporary issues. (3rd ed.). W. W. Norton & Company.