Introduction
Habeas corpus is defined as the writ in which the person who has been arrested faces trial to defend their innocence. This writ of habeas corpus is a term from the legal phrase called that you have the body. This is made into law in which it is a must for all who are detained to be taken to the courts and judged without any prejudice. This is a way for the jurisdiction to show people the reasons why they have arrested a person. The habeas corpus is a very important tool for the American and English laws especially when it comes to protecting the civilians in times of war on terror.
The historical evolution of habeas corpus in English tradition
The historical evolution of habeas corpus in the English law is unknown but it was the first place in the world where its usage began. The reign of King Edward in 1305 this is when the habeas corpus was first heard to being used in England. The main reason the writ of habeas corpus was used was because of the conflict or the tension that existed between the civil law and the common law especially during the reign of King Henry VII. This was to make sure that the people who were imprisoned by the chancellors or the courts of admiralty were able to get the liberty to defend themselves without prejudice. In England the habeas corpus act was enacted in 1679 by the parliament (Justin, 2011). This enabled the courts in London to issue the writ of habeas corpus even when the courts were out of sessions.
The act was expanded by the parliament in the 19th century in which it enabled other private process to be included in the act and not only the state. The writ of habeas corpus was also applied to all the English colonies such as Australia, Canada and the United States of America. This was a way to make sure that justice was provided for all and not just the government. Although the act has been put in place throughout the history in England it has experienced many challenges such as restrictions of the writ or suspensions. This was especially been experienced in the 18th and the 19th century when there was the world wars and when there was conflict in the Northern Ireland. The writ of habeas corpus became part of the tradition in England because it is able to keep the government in check especially in terms of judiciary and enables people to prove their innocence for wrongful imprisonment.
Historical evolution of habeas corpus in American traditions
England was the first to start the writ of habeas corpus and made it possible for its colonies to apply it. United States was a colony of England thus was able to use the writ of habeas corpus in their judicial systems. This caused America to add the writ of habeas corpus in their constitution together with other rights. This was called the bill of rights by many people because it interested the people especially when the state wants to exploit them. The writ of habeas corpus is found in the article I section 9 of the American constitution. It stated that “The opportunity of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be left pending, except when in Case of uprising or Invasion for the community Safety may require it”. In the 18th century the bill of rights was not effective until 1791 due to the constant persistence of James Madison who made its adoption possible by the congress. Through this the writ of habeas corpus became an important tool in the American constitution and the judiciary. A good example of a case was that of the ex parte Dred Scott where the writ of habeas corpus was applied before the civil war. In this case Dred scot was a slave who was to be granted freedom after the death of the master which he was denied. He petitioned for the writ of habeas corpus in the courts and was granted (Justin 2011, p 296).
This was however overthrown by the supreme courts because a slave by then was not considered to be a person to be heard thus did not have a right to the judicial system. This is considered to be one of the most notable cases of the use of the writ of habeas corpus. The other notable example of a case of the writ of habeas corpus was of the ex parte Merryman. In this case the then president Lincoln took it upon himself to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. This was against the ruling by the supreme courts and it showed that the congress had major powers to suspend the writ of habeas corpus under the constitution laws. After the death of President Lincoln the Supreme Court granted the writ in that the congress was the ones who are supposed to stop or suspend it (Osborne, 2013). This is also showed that the military have no say in the judicial process and the trials of the people after the concluded civil war. The current United States still applies the writ of habeas corpus in the courts in many cases such as when the prisoner is in the death row or prisoners who have overstayed their sentence. The other cases where a person has been granted the right to the writ of habeas corpus is when they are in custody without being charged by the police.
Analyze the relevance of habeas corpus to the contemporary U.S. situation during the war on terror, especially with respect to persons characterized by as enemy combatants or illegal combatants.
The relevance of habeas corpus is that it provides a detained person a chance to face trial but it is another case for people considered to be an enemy combatant in the contemporary America. This became a harder challenge for the American government to offer the writ of habeas corpus for people who are considered to be a danger to the public since the terrorist attack that occurred in September 11 2001 (Savage, 2001). This is when the congress allowed the president to use any measure to fight against terrorism. This act enabled the then President Bush to issue a guidelines for the military in which it gave them the rights to try detainees suspected of terrorism and it showed them how to treat the detainees. In 2002 the United States began taking detained suspects of war in terror in a U.S naval station in Cuba a place known as the Guatemala bay. The relevance of the writ of habeas corpus is that it can help people who are detained while they are innocent to state their claim and produce evidence. This however is not applicable because Guatemala bay is not in America and the people are considered to be enemy combatant thus has no right to the constitution. An enemy combatant is considered to be very dangerous to the community or society thus should not have any civil liberty this is in accordance to the American government. The fight of terrorism is a war against terror therefore, it is important for the government and the supreme to show that they are partial meaning that they should grant the prisoners the right to the writ of habeas corpus (Robertson).
Explain the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the right of habeas corpus with respect to enemy combatants or illegal combatants (i.e., the views of the five justices making up the majority in Boumediene v. Bush as well as the views of the four dissenting justices).
The united states have come up with the verdict that the people who are being detained in the Guatemala have the right to the habeas corpus to get to the reason they are being detained. The only time where the courts agreed upon was that the congress has the right to suspend the habeas corpus when the country is under the threat of being invaded. According to most of the judges the decision was used to show the credibility of the country to other nations. The detainee treatment act allowed the courts to check the procedure and the decisions made to see whether the people who are being detained could be from the enemy combatants. After the tribunal court’s ruling the federal appeals courts have no rights to increase evidence nor are they able to release a person detained. The government have strictly maintained that a person known as an enemy combatant and is detained they do not have the constitutional rights hence the habeas corpus (Garcia & Micheal 2010 p1-54).
The justice Anthony M. Kennedy disputed this fact and stated that all people in the world have rights. He also stated that the people who are detained are under the government since they have been taken from their respective countries and brought to Guatemala which is under the government. The case of Boumediene v bush the court came up with decision of 5 to 4 which showed that the case was unconstitutional in that it violated the right to the writ of habeas corpus. The five justices that came with these decisions were justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Stevens, Kennedy, Breyer and Souter. The four justices who opposed these decisions were justices Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Roberts. The views of the four dissenting justices claimed that it was not the right time to have the case. This was utterly rejected by most of the justices. The views of the five justices who made up the ruling all argued that all people should have rights of the writ of habeas corpus if they are under the control of the U.S government.
Evaluate a minimum of four perspectives on this topic expressed by justices of the Supreme Court, leaders in other branches of government, and commentators in both the academic and popular media. Your evaluation should consider perspectives on the following topics as they relate to habeas corpus:
According to the constitution of United States the president as the commander-in-chief of military has no right to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. This has been a primary discussion by many because during the era of President Lincoln he was able to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in the case of ex parte Mulligan (Wert 2011). This was against the supreme courts ruling but the congress backed up the president therefore, it was easy for the case to be suspended. The congress of the United States is permitted by the law and constitution to suspend any case of writ of habeas corpus. This therefore, gives them powers to suspend a case they seem not right for the writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court also has a say in the suspension of cases of writ of habeas corpus. This was clear in the case of Boumediene v bush where they were able to make a ruling on the case. The other example of a case where the Supreme Court suspended the writ of habeas corpus was in the case of ex parte Dred Scott. In my personal philosophy I believe that all individuals have a right to show their innocence once they are detained. The people who are considered to be enemy combatant of the country should first produce evidence which could prove their innocence but once the individual is found endangering the country then they have no right to civil liberty. This means that they should not be entitled to the right of writ of habeas corpus to protect the country and the people. National security of the nation should always be a first priority and not the civil liberty of the enemy combatant.
Conclusion
The writ of habeas corpus plays an important role in ensuring that the government is able to provide evidence as to the reason an individual is arrested. This will also make sure the detainee that they will get justice and prove their innocence. According to history there have been some cases where the writ of habeas corpus has been suspended by the president, the Supreme Court and the congress. There have been a lot of speculations and debates as to whether the detainees in Guatemala bay are entitled to the writ of habeas corpus. The government of United States have maintained that the detainees in accordance to the constitution have no right to the writ of habeas corpus or judiciary hearings in the United States. This is for the reason that they are considered to be enemy combatant thus they do not have the right of civil liberty for they endanger the lives of innocent civilians.
Reference
Garcia, J. & Micheal K. (2010). Enemy Combatant Detainees: Habeas Corpus Challenges in Federal Court. congressional research service , 1-54.
Justin, W. J. (2011). Habeas Corpus in America: The Politics of Individual Rights. University Press of Kansas , 296.
Osborne, J. R. (2013). The Writ of Habeas Corpus, The Constitution and Abraham Lincoln, War President. Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute .
Robertson, J. D. (n.d.). HABEAS CORPUS THE MOST EXTRAORDINARY WRIT. Retrieved from http://www.habeascorpus.net/hcwrit.html
Savage, C. (2001). Senate Declines to Clarify Rights of American Qaeda Suspects Arrested in U.S.,. The New York Times .
Wert, J. J. ( 2011). Habeas Corpus in America The Politics of Individual Rights. Constitutional Thinking .
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/group/psylawseminar/Habeas%20Corpus.htm
