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

Civil liberties, Habeas head t apieceer, and the affirm of warf ar on disquietude strike been the forefront of Congress since cc1 with the terrorist labialize against The joined States. Although there perplex been many attacks before, n one and only(a) set about hit the American people in such(prenominal) a manner to question whether our gracious liberties ar at stake. As a loticle of the Armed Forces I swore to support and defend the typography of the unify States against every enemies both foreign and home(prenominal) at all cost. A sense of pride, devotion and commitment engulfs me when I attempt the words for decent justice and liberty for all when it comes to erving my coun depict that practices and honors American citizens civilian liberties.Unfortunately, the liberties that most Americans take for disposed(p) atomic number 18 the same liberties that other people from distinguishable realms of the world come to obtain. The War on Terror would impact lives deeply from this point on and the civil liberties of every American citizen and noncitizen would change the memoir of what we were founded on. condition chairman George W. Bush and his administration personate out to capture those thought to be accountable for the terrorist attacks on American soil. In addition Former presidentBush and his administration went to great lengths to go beyond the reach of the judicial system which en rives the judicial writ of Habeas principal sum. These deeds pay been highly debated across the nation. Habeas star superior meaning can be best delimitate as a demand by the costs to which a government agency produces a prisoner and demonstrates that they have the proper grounds in which to hold them. It is the accomplish by which Common jurisprudence countries ensure the second freedom mentioned in the U. S. Declaration of Independence intimacy and the right not to be imprisoned haphazardly in its most fundamental form (MacMillan, K, 20 10).Habeas Corpus was written into the first article of the constitution drill as such The privilege of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the cosmos safety may require it. No nib of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. (Article 1, Section 9, U. S. theme). Furthermore, the Habeas Corpus in the U. S. Constitution guarantees the people the right to require the government to loose detaining or imprisoning, the right not to be prohibit without fair trial, freedom from impartialitys passed after fact.So the questions to muse about re Did the tragedy of September 11th, liberate the actions of the Former President? Is it fair that prisoners were and still atomic number 18 locked away, and pull downped of their basic rights beneath the writ of Habeas Corpus? And is the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave such a great nation, that is so powerful that the polices that were trust in tush to protect civil freedom s and liberties, do not carry to us? Jonathan Turley, professor of integral law of nature at George Washington University stated, What, really, a duration of shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what he chairman signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values. I agree altogether heartedly about this comment.The Presidents decision to sweep the political detainees Prisoner of War (prisoner of war) place remains a point of conflict, especially overseas with some literary argument that it is based on an inaccurate interpretation of the geneva Convention for the discussion of Prisoners of War, which the assert requires that all combatants captured on the battlefield are entitled to be toughened as POWs until an independent tribunal has determined otherwise. bingle notable date in military account statement is on October 17, 2006, when President Bush igned a law suspending the right of habeas head teacher to pers ons determined by the United States to be an opposite combatant in the orbicular War on Terror. President Bushs action drew severe rebuke, mainly for the laws failure to specifically designate who in the United States will determine who is and who is not an resistance combatant. This however 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 earlier years of the U. S. Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspended writs of habeas corpus.Both presidents based their action on the dangers of war, and both presidents faced sharp criticism for carrying out what many believed to be an attack on the Constitution. President Bush suspended writs of habeas corpus through with(predicate) his support and signed into law the Military Commissions map of 2006. This bill makeed the President of the United States almost unlimited authority in establishing and cond ucting military commissions to try persons held by the U. S. in the Global War on Terrorism.In addition, the Act suspends the right of unlawful competitor combatants to present, or to have presented in heir behalf, writs of habeas corpus. Members of inform corps, militias, and organized resistance forces that are not part of the Armed Forces are entitled to POW status if they meet 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 enured as civilians under the Geneva Convention copulation to the Protection 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 petitioner must be treated as a prisoner of war until a competent tribunal has decided otherwise, and that a military commission may not affect with their trial. Although 250 detainees (includ ing three children under the age 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 life conditions eon the status and treatment of detainees who remain in custody continue to be a etymon 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 well as ago presidents having been using this to detain, convict or, (We understand Congress grant of authority for the use of necessary and appropriate force to include the authority to detain for the duration of the applicable conflict, and our understanding is based on longstanding law of war principles. ) id. at 548-49 (Souter, J. ) Combat Status study Tribunals (CSRT), which were established 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 legality of ones detention. The ultimate philander recognizes that the CSRT process for hearing cases puts many constraints upon the detainees ability to re only when the factual can for the Governments assertion that he is an enemy combatant (Boumediene v. Bush). Some flaws the court points out is that the CSRT assumes that the detainees are guilty 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 bias shown by the members of the CSRT puts the detainees at a disadvantage. Furthermore, while many of the detainees have a limited friendship of English, they are not given the specifics as to what crimes they are being charged with because the instruction may be classified. Additionally, with no textual evidence, the detainees often go into the CSRT maturate empty handed and without legal representation.Not precisely do the proceedings of the CSRT seem nfair, it also seems to be designed to intentionally make it difficult for detainees to sound their freedom. In closing, the Founding Fathers placed 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 Bill of Rights which are specifically reserved for the people to protect them against the government. Furthermore, the rest of the clauses in Article 1, Section 9 specifically state what types of activities that the Legislative Branch cannot do.Hence, the Suspension Clause, because of its placement, was intended to be a limitation upon the abuse of power by the Legislative Branch. Lastly, the principle of separa tion of powers came from the idea that each branch would be able to check one another (Checks and Balances). The Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006 was an amendment to the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) which did not allow the Federal Courts to hear writs of habeas corpus from the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.The US imperious Court decided that because the DTA was an inadequate substitution for habeas corpus, then the MCA annot strip away Federal courts jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus cases. The Military Commission Act of 2006 effectively gelt the Judiciary Branch from doing its job therefore qualification 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, but on the principles that guide us as the great and most Powerful Nation in the world.