In the past few years there has been people seeking the question "what is the right process of eliminating terrorist from non-terrorist?" How does this affect the United States and what things can we do to make it better. In are efforts to understand this we need to start off from the beginning by learning what Habeas Corpus is, where it comes from and how America follows its traditions. The best place to start off is what Habeas Corpus means, it comes from a Latin term which means “you have the body”. It means to bring a person that is under arrest to court or before a judge. The reason for Habeas Corpus is so that a prisoner can be released unlawfully if there is lack of evidence or cause. Habeas Corpus originated from the English legal system and is now used in many countries around the world, it is also known as “Great Writ”. Habeas Corpus “Great Writ” was first used in England not for helping detainees, but for helping government officials in the judicial process and remuneration. The origin explains why there has been much controversy because Habeas Corpus wasn’t made to help as Edward Jenks famously said “Originally not intended to get people out of prison, but to put them in it”(Gregory, 2011). Habeas Corpus is talked about in the Constitution in Article I, Section 9. There it is stated that “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”.
During are United States history there has been many times that Habeas Corpus was suspended. During the beginning of the Civil War in 1861 President Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, his decision was upheld by congress. This brought issues because it was said that it wasn’t in the president’s hands to do so. “The Supreme Court's liberal decisions in the 1950s and 1960s in the area of prisoners' rights encouraged many incarcerated persons to file writs challenging their convictions, but the Court under William Rehnquist limited multiple habeas corpus filings, particularly from prisoners on death row”(Corpus, 2013). “English history demonstrates that Parliament adopted the practice of suspending the protections of the Habeas Corpus Act in order to bring within the law the detention without charges of persons subject to the law of treason for criminal or national security purposes. This explains why Parliament commonly suspended the Act in times of war, including during the Revolutionary War, when Parliament sought to legalize the detention without charges of captured American soldiers on English soil (where the Habeas Corpus Act was in effect and, as Lord Mansfield advised Lord North's Administration, the writ would therefore be available to them to win their freedom so long as they claimed subject hood"). As is also brought to light in this Part, once Parliament came to accept that the colonists had broken their allegiance from the Crown, it permitted its suspension legislation to lapse and recognized the colonists remaining in custody as "prisoners of war" whose rights would no longer be governed by domestic law but instead by the "law of nations” (Clause, 2012). Finally, the newest time to recall suspension of Habeas Corpus is when President Bush was President, it was called BOUMEDIENE V. BUSH and it happened in 2008. This was a submission made in civilian court on behalf of Lakhdar Boumediene. He was a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina and was held at Guantanamo Bay a.k.a Gitmo, located in Cuba in detention camps. Guantanamo bay is technically owned by the United States, but under 1903 lease between United States and Cuba, Cuba is the one who had ultimate control over the territory. Many arguments we heard over this by the Supreme Court. When it all ended there was a 5-4 majority on the case, it was said that the prisoners had a right to Habeas Corpus under the constitution and that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was a suspension of that right. It was ruled in BOUMEDIENE...
References: I. Bigornia, A. P. (1994). HABEAS CORPUS--FIFTH AMENDMENT--THE SUPREME COURT 'S COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF FEDERAL HABEAS REVIEW OF ALLEGED MIRANDA VIOLATIONS. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 84(4), 915-942.
III. Foley, B.J. (2007). GUANTANAMO AND BEYOND: DANGERS OF RIGGING THE
IV. RULES. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 97(4), 1009-1069.
V. GREGORY, A. (2011). "The Tissue of the Structure" Habeas Corpus and the Great Writ 's Paradox of Power and Liberty. Independent Review, 16(1), 53-91.
VI. Habeas corpus. (2013). Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th Edition, 1.
VII. Habeas corpus in the United States. (2013, June 2). In Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 02:24, June 11, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Habeas_corpus_in_the_United_States&oldid=558010386
VIII. THE FORGOTTEN CORE MEANING OF THE SUSPENSION CLAUSE. (2012). Harvard Law Review, 125(4), 901-1017.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document