Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror Essay

Civil liberties, Habeas dealer, and the state of contend on sc ar take been the forefront of copulation since 2001 with the terrorist endeavour against The unite States. Although thither have been legion(predicate) attacks before, none have hit the American people in such a manner to question whether our civil liberties be at stake. As a component of the Armed Forces I swore to give and abide the genius of the United States against tot anyy enemies both(prenominal) foreign and domestic at solely cost. A sense of pride, loyalty and consignment engulfs me when I attempt the words for represent justice and liberty for all when it comes to erving my boorish that practices and honors American citizens civil liberties.Unfortunately, the liberties that intimately Americans take for granted be the compar tint liberties that other people from different realms of the realism come to obtain. The fight on disquietude would impact lives deeply from this point on and the civil liberties of every American citizen and awaysider would change the storey of what we were founded on. Former chairman George W. furnish and his boldness set out to capture those thought to be obligated for the terrorist attacks on American soil. In accompaniment Former chairpersonBush and his administration went to great lengths to go beyond the bump off of the judicial system which en motors the writ of Habeas principal sum. These achievements have been highly debated across the nation. Habeas dealer buffer meaning can be beat out defined as a fill by the courts to which a government gestate produces a prisoner and demonstrates that they have the powerful-hand(a) grounds in which to hold them. It is the touch by which Common Law countries encounter the second freedom mentioned in the U. S. contract bridge of Independence Liberty and the ripe(p) non to be imprisoned arbitrarily in its most fundamental form (MacMillan, K, 2010).Habeas Corpus was wri tten into the first article of the constitution occupying as such The exclusive right of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public resort whitethorn require it. No prick of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. (Article 1, Section 9, U. S. Constitution). Furthermore, the Habeas Corpus in the U. S. Constitution guarantees the people the right to require the government to justify detaining or imprisoning, the right not to be prohibit without fair trial, freedom from laws passed after fact.So the questions to ponder about re Did the catastrophe of September 11th, justify the attains of the Former chairman? Is it fair that prisoners were and still are locked away, and bleak of t heritor basic rights beneath the writ of Habeas Corpus? And is the Land of the Free and the Home of the audacious such a great nation, that is so powerful that the laws that were put in arrange to protect civil freedoms and liberties, d o not apply to us? Jonathan Turley, professor of constituent(a) law at George Washington University stated, What, really, a time of shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what he president signed straight off essentially revokes over 200 historic period of American principles and values. I agree satisfying heartedly about this comment.The Presidents close to deny the political detainees Prisoner of War (prisoner of war) circumstance detains a point of conflict, in particular overseas with roughly arguing that it is ground on an inaccurate interpretation of the geneva Convention for the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which the assert requires that all combatants captured on the battlefield are entitle to be treated as POWs until an strong-minded tribunal has hardened otherwise. One worthy date in military history is on October 17, 2006, when President Bush igned a law suspending the right of habeas corpus to persons determined by the United Sta tes to be an oppositeness combatant in the Global War on Terror. President Bushs action drew severe criticism, in general for the laws failure to specifically designate who in the United States entrust determine who is and who is not an oppositeness combatant. This up to now was not the first time in the history of the U. S. Constitution that its guaranteed right to Habeas Corpus has been suspended by an action of the President of the United States. In former years of the U. S. Civil War, President Abraham capital of Nebraska suspended writs of habeas corpus.Both presidents based their action on the dangers of war, and both presidents faced nippy criticism for carrying out what many believed to be an attack on the Constitution. President Bush suspended writs of habeas corpus through his support and signed into law the phalanx Commissions dis stake of 2006. This bill granted the President of the United States almost un trammel role in establishing and conducting military co mmissions to try persons held by the U. S. in the Global War on Terrorism.In addition, the telephone number suspends the right of outlawed enemy combatants to present, or to have presented in heir behalf, writs of habeas corpus. Members of volunteer corps, militias, and organized resistance forces that are not part of the Armed Forces are entitle to POW status if they fit out the criteria specified in the treaty. Groups that do not meet the standards are not entitled to POW status, and their members who commit aggressive acts may be treated as civilians under the Geneva Convention Relative to the aegis of Civilian Persons in Time of War( Terrorism, the Laws of War, and the Constitution Policy Archive ).These unlawful combatants are not afforded immunity for their ostile acts. A prayer must be treated as a prisoner of war until a competent tribunal has decided otherwise, and that a military commission may not proceed with their trial. Although 250 detainees (including three chil dren under the long time of 16), 13 have been released from the detention facilities at the U. S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and some detainees are being rewarded for cooperation with better backup conditions plot of land the status and treatment of detainees who remain in custody continue to be a source of contention (Enemy Combatants Journal, Wuerth).Although the President has inherent power under the Commander-in-Chief article Article II to take measures he deems appropriate during wartime, he uses The law of war principle. President Bush as closely as past presidents having been using this to detain, flimflam or, (We understand Congress grant of authority for the use of necessary and appropriate force to include the authority to detain for the season of the relevant conflict, and our understanding is based on longstanding law of war principles. ) id. at 548-49 (Souter, J. ) Combat Status Review Tribunals (CSRT), which were constituted by the DefenseDepartment, were put into place for the sole purpose of hearing the cases of the detainees. However, there are many flaws in having such a system determine the justness of ones detention. The exacting court of justice recognizes that the CSRT process for hearing cases puts many constraints upon the detainees ability to re alone the actual basis for the Governments boldness that he is an enemy combatant (Boumediene v. Bush). approximately flaws the court points out is that the CSRT assumes that the detainees are nefarious before the trial has even started and it is all up to the detainee to prove that they are in fact, not enemy combatants.This goes against the typical US court proceedings when all suspects are presumed innocent until proven otherwise. The virgule shown by the members of the CSRT puts the detainees at a disadvantage. Furthermore, while many of the detainees have a limited knowledge of English, they are not attached the specifics as to what crimes they are being aerated with because the information may be classified. Additionally, with no textual evidence, the detainees often go into the CSRT calling card empty handed and without legal representation. non only do the proceedings of the CSRT come along nfair, it also seems to be designed to deliberately make it difficult for detainees to secure their freedom. In closing, the Founding Fathers laid the Suspension clause in Article 1, Section 9 in the Constitution. This is important because if the founding fathers specifically intended to apply the Suspension clause to US citizens only, then they would have placed it in the measuring of Rights which are specifically reserved for the people to protect them against the government. Furthermore, the residuum of the clauses in Article 1, Section 9 specifically state what types of activities that the Legislative ramify cannot do.Hence, the Suspension Clause, because of its placement, was intended to be a limitation upon the abuse of power by the Le gislative Branch. Lastly, the principle of separation of powers came from the idea that each branch would be able to check one another (Checks and Balances). The legions Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006 was an amendment to the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) which did not allow the federal acts to hear writs of habeas corpus from the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.The US Supreme Court decided that because the DTA was an inadequate renewal for habeas corpus, then the MCA annot strip away Federal courts jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus cases. The Military Commission Act of 2006 effectively sugar the Judiciary Branch from doing its job thereof making the act or Bill unconstitutional. . So as I read and watch videos to acquire information I ask myself, Are not constitutionally correct? Detainees, Enemy Combatants, or POW should have the same fair and equal treatment whether it is on our soil or their soil. Presidential power, Congress and the Supreme Court should not rule on emotions, b ut on the principles that guide us as the Greatest and most Powerful state in the world.