Right of Habeas Corpus Essay
Right of Habeas Corpus
The Right of Habeas Corpus is derived from the Latin meaning “you have the body. The meaning according to the U. S. Constitution is the right of any person to question their incarceration before a judge. The violating of this right has not been the most severe of the civil liberties granted to not only Americans but many other countries. The biggest violation of this right was when the Busch administration held hundreds of suspected terrorist from the Afghan and Iraqi terror attacks of 9/11. The first real act of Habeas Corpus comes from the passage of the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867 through 1915.
At that time the court denied Leo Frank this right during a murder trial. Some other interesting evolutions of this act throughout history are Lincoln’s Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus this was a historical moment for this right of the constitution. “Lincoln’s power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus was extensively explored during the Civil War, but since then his suspensions have escaped detailed scrutiny despite the controversy they provoked, their widespread and effective use to combat malignant opposition to the war, and their uncertain grounding in the Constitution. Under the Constitution the federal government can unquestionably suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus if the public safety requires it during times of rebellion or invasion.
The issue is whether Congress or the president holds this power. I think this is why during the 9/11 attacks President Bush felt he could detain all those people because of this right. President Bush made a statement that the detainees were “enemy combatants” or “illegal combatants. He also along with the Pentagon stated that these people were a threat to national security. I am sure most of this was done because of the severity of the 9/11 attacks and the fact that nothing like this has ever happen on US soil in history. In June of 2004 the US Supreme Court ruled in Rasul v. Bush that U. S. courts have jurisdiction to hear challenges on behalf of persons detained at the U. S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in connection with the war against terrorism.
The Court overturned a ruling that no U. S. ourt has jurisdiction to hear petitions for habeas corpus on behalf of the detainees because they are aliens detained abroad, but left questions involving prisoners’ rights and status unanswered. “The Bush Administration earlier deemed all of the detainees to be “unlawful combatants,” The Senate also voted to deny the people the rights to federal court to file a violation of habeas corpus petitions at this time also. “On 12 June 2008, the Supreme Court ruled, in Boumediene v. [ Bush, 5-4 that Guantanamo captives were entitled to access the US justice system.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion: The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. The Court also ruled that the Combatant Status Review Tribunals were “inadequate”. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens joined Kennedy in the majority. Chief Justice John Roberts, in the minority opinion, called the CSR Tribunals the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants”.
This was crazy times for everyone involved so I do believe whatever decision they made at the time of this occurrence was going to come under much scrutiny and opposition no matter which way they went. The role as commander a chief as written is “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States. ” As commander in chief, the president has the authority to place U. S. military forces on alert and to authorize military force.
In my opinion the role as the President of the United States and Commander and Chief is to protect the citizens of the country at all costs. There have been many times in the past history that our President may have stepped out of line when it comes to certain rights or laws they may have went around or bent them a little. I think sometimes when it comes to certain things that have happen to the US that may never have happen before a President just like any of us can have a moment of panic and may make a decision in haste.
My thoughts and heart lie with the United States as so does the President I think and if he makes decision with his heart sometimes for the betterment of the citizens of the United States then I am okay with that. I may not agree with everything he does, but as long as it is not done for personal gain or anything like that then we have to stand behind him and also show our support during times like 9/11. The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
The Congress as far as I can see does not have the specific right to suspend the habeas corpus nor does the President. During extreme times and difficult times this does however happen and I would say that based on everything I have read the Supreme Court would go to the Congress and ask that they rule on this. When it came to the detainees during the 9/11 situation the decision was based on the fact they were not US citizens and they were not in the United States. The role of the Supreme Court in protecting civil liberties, including the judicial philosophy which should guide the Court in this role.
The Supreme Court is all about protecting the people of the United States and making sure that each person accused of a crime has their civil liberties protected. I am all for that when it comes to crimes that are domestic of nature and that occurs within the United States and are committed by US citizens. When it comes to times of wars and other people have attacked our Country and have not cared about or civil liberties to live free, I think there may be a different look at things when it comes to people who have ties to the country or organization in question.
If you have no regard for human life and will attack us without reason and also attack innocent people then all bets are off. With that said our Supreme Court should not make those types of decision on terrorist attacks or war time problems. My personal philosophy, values or ideology about the balance between civil liberties and national security in the context of an unending war on terror. My thought on this are probably really out there on this subject, but I guess that why it is called an opinion everyone is entitled to it right or wrong.
When it comes to the protection of the US and it’s people I hold the same view I do on my family and friends and would stand behind any President that does the same as I would. When it comes to the safety and protection of my family there are no limits I will do whatever it takes to make sure they are protected and at any cost. When my family is threatened like the United States is now with terror I think anything and everything should be done. I am sure people will cry about their privacy and civil liberties being taken away, but if you have nothing to hide then what is the problem.
If our President deems it necessary to break a few rules and it saves hundreds of lives in the process I am all for it. You want to put more security on planes or make in where I have to be stripped searched to board a plane go for it. If the lives of my family and friends and everyone around is saved because of this then great. I say protect us at any and all costs. Like I would do to my family. I am not going to worry if I am breaking a law or two if it means the protection and safety of my family. I would hope our President and his administration would look at all US citizens this way and protect us at all costs.