The habeas laws - Essay Example

? The habeas laws Insert of Introduction The United s, who is also the super power country in the world history sincethe end of the cold war marked by the falling of the berlin wall, has been involved in a number of war with other antagonistic countries around the world mainly from the Arabian states. The notable ones among these include the Vietnamese war, the war with the Iraqi government under the strong leadership of the famous President Sadam Hussein, the war against Osama bin Laden and his Afghanistan based terrorists group, The Al Qaeda, commonly known as the war on terror are some of the most recognized wars that the America government has fought since the end of the cold wars. The war on terror against the terror group of Afghanistan under the leadership of Osama bin Laden begun as a result of the bombing attacks on the twins tower and world trade center in Washington DC which led to the death of hundreds of people, dozens escaping with injuries of various degrees and thousands around the world grieving for the loss of their loved ones, friends and relatives. Over seven hundred prisoners have been captured In relation to these attacks, a couple of them have been tried and released without fines while some of them, around 169 are still serving jail terms in GITMO, a prison inside a U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, on land leased from the government of Cuba. The bush administration chose on this land for the detention of these prisoners in order to escape the legal challenges that would arise from the supreme courts of America questioning the authenticity for the indefinite detention of the prisoners of war by the bush administration contrary to the requirements of the habeas corpus laws which gives rights to the detainees to be heard before detainment. The habeas corpus laws states that, any persons detained by the government is entitled to a judicial hearing to determine if there is any legal basis for their detention, that is, the law protects any detainee from detention lacking sufficient cause or evidence which is in line with article 1, section 9 of the constitution of the united states of America which states 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." (Jackson, 2006, 312) This paper will examine the right of habeas corpus in the context of the war on terror on the bid to offer protection to the detainees at GITMO and it origin development and existence in the American and British context today. The general meaning of the right of habeas corpus in the U.S. Constitution The habeas laws found their way into the American constitution through the suspension laws defined in the constitution of the United States of America which included the common laws of England. As a result this law was supported by the enactment of the article 1 section 9, clause 2 of the constitution demanding 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." (Turner, 2002, 115) Carpenter notes that from the onset of this enactment, the constitution of the united states accords every person an undisputable right to make a plea to the federal courts for the summons of habeas corpus in case of any form of detention filled as pro se cases whereby the government is usually called upon to answer before the court the logical reason behind the arrest and detention of an individual by state authorities (Carpenter, 1902, 25). The habeas laws were then transmitted down to the individual state governments which as well allow their respective citizens to petition the state authorities in their own state courts with respect to their individual state constitutions when they happened to be sentenced by the state authorities. The federal habeas did not apply to those under police custody even up to the time of the war on terrorism. In order to ensure that state courts implement the federal habeas after the civil wars and reconstruction, the reconstruction act was enacted and extends for the first time the right of reviewing the state habeas to the prisoners in custody thereby allowing rights to several prisoners of the time to demand for the fresh hearing of their cases. Some of these cases filled by the already detained prisoners in the American cells are still pending in the American federal courts to date awaiting hearing The civil liberties in America mostly stem from the bill of rights documents and the U.S constitutional amendments, the habeas laws are an exception to these and command the government to accord exceptional rights to prisoners by calling on the federal government to show the legal reasons for holding the prisoner in detention (Seghetti and Nathan, 2001, 348). The term habeas corpus bears a Latin origin which literally means ‘you should have the body’. The term comes at the opening statement of the document and was used in the medieval Britain to call upon the jailer to bring the prisoner before the court for his or her case to be heard before the jailer could proceed to jail the detainee. This writ was then adopted in the American constitution and gives every American an undeniable chance to demand an explanation from the persons putting them to jail before proceeding to serve the jail terms. As has been mentioned before, this writ is firmly supported in the American constitution and with its strong mention made in the article 1 section 9 of the American constitution The habeas corpus has an outstanding and an espousing statement that helps in protecting the other civil rights in a more general manner. It has a well spelt statement which requires police to either charge a criminal suspect with a crime or release him if no practical offence can be deduced from the claims made over the offender. This acts as an umbrella that covers all the civil liberties on the land by giving everyone an outstanding chance to demand an explicit explanation from the police for his or her arrest. As has been mentioned earlier in this essay, the original document of the American constitution has very few civil liberties most of which stem from the bill of rights which makes up the first ten amendments enacted in the American constitution (Jackson, 2006, 306). Among these liberties include that which prohibits Ex Post Facto laws which claims that no retroactive laws can be passed. Second to this is that which prohibits the bill of attainder, these are the laws passed by a legislature designed to specifically punish someone. All these civil liberties owe a lot from the habeas corpus which can be said to be the major civil liberty which espouses them all. The writ therefore protects all the civil liberties spelt out in the American constitution. The historical evolution of habeas corpus The origin of the habeas corpus is unclear from the available records. However, some people argue that the origins can be traced back into the English history at around 1265 during the reign of King Henry II of England in the twelfth century. The habeas of king henry’s time had the same statement that is contained in the habeas of today as it clearly that the king, who was the one in charge of listening to all cases, a equivalence of the modern formal courts, the mandatory requirement to at all the times have an account, why the liberty of any of his subjects is restrained, wherever that restraint may be inflicted. However the formal codified procedure for administering the habeas was spelt out in 1679 challenging the ruling that the decision of the king concerning any case was final and undisputable and that his command was an adequate reply to any petition of the habeas corpus. This newly written statement of the habeas petitioned the lower court (the sheriff) to bring the prisoner before the royal courts of law. It further spelt out that the habeas could be made by the detainee or any third party concerned irrespective of whether the court was in session or not, this could be done simply by sending a petition to the judge. The adoption of the habeas laws into the United States constitution came about as a result of the inclusion of the English common laws into the American constitution contrary to the case of England where the habeas was used at the mercies of the monarch. The exercise of the habeas began operating in the American continent just immediately the thirteen American colonies declared independent and were accorded the status of republics on the grounds of popular sovereignty. All the citizens of these states were therefore accorded the authority to benefit from the writ. The habeas as later on well defined in the American constitution in he suspension clause 2 section 9 of article 1 of he American constitution and spelt out that "legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in the Congress of the United States..." in this way, the habeas laws found its way into the American constitution which was later on devolved down to the individual states which equally included the laws in their constitution allowing their respective citizens to demand for accounts for the reasons for the order for their arrests. Instances for the suspension of habeas corpus in the U.S. history The habeas corpus has ben suspended on several grounds in the U. S history, below are some of the instances where the habeas laws have been suspended in the U.S. the first instance is where during the arrest and detention of James B Merryman without trials in 1862 since he was considered a threat to the national security (Irons, 1999). His fellow Marylander chief Justice Roger B. Taney then appealed for the habeas corpus on his behalf which was suspended by President Lincoln. This was followed by a similar suspension by the Congress in 1863 in response to Roger’s challenge to the authority of the president to issue the suspension of the habeas on Merryman. For the same reason, the close allies of Merryman with whom they carried out several instances of treason involving murders in south Carolina in 1861also had their appeals for the habeas corpus suspended by president Lincoln in order to curtail the treacherous murders and extra-ordinary powers in the region which were actually on the increase and ordered the arrest and detention of these persons considered dangerous to the state security which was done by military authorities, federal marshals and secret service agents without actually looking for sufficient evidence to substantiate the charges against them. Relevance of the habeas corpus to the contemporary U.S The habeas has a very recognizable relevance in the current situations in America especially wit regard to the cases of war on terror. Even though the detainees of the afghan war are nor really in a land that in under the jurisdiction of the American government, the GITMO is still under the control of the American government and so can be arguably considered American land. The prisoners detained in this land should therefore be granted the chance to enjoy the brought about by the habeas law privileges. The laws categorically stipulate that any person detained in American land has the rights to appeal for the review of their cases and to demand the reasons for their detention from the government as defined by the habeas laws (Lisa M. Seghetti, 2001, 351). As a result, the government of America should be able to grant the chance to all the 169 detainees in the GITMO region to as for an explanation for their detention since they were detained without trial on a land that is under the American jurisdiction. Failure to grant this will be a grand violation of the American constitution by the American government. The denial of the habeas corpus to these prisoners on the ground that they are enemies to the state or illegal combatants may mean a lot to logical reasoning but still a violation of the rights of these alleged combatants as the proof that they are really the real illegal combatants or enemies of the state has no been proved In any court f laws so in essence, they are actually not guilty of the offence until proven guilty. The U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the right of habeas corpus According to the American supreme courts, their interpretation of the habeas corpus laws is pegged on the fact that every American citizen as well as any individual detained on American land is entitled to enjoy the rights reserved to him or her by the habeas laws. The five justices making up the majority in Boumediene v. Bush unanimously rejected the executive’s authority to deny access to courts without a congressional suspension of the writ (Hellen, 1960, 532). They argued that the American government had no rights whatsoever to deny the alleged combatants the right to appeal for the habeas corpus citing the limitations of the government and the congress to carry out such responsibilities. The other four judges also agreed with the ruling of the four judges in the case that the Afghans should be accorded their liberty rights as stipulated in article 1 section 9 clauses 2 of the American constitution and in the habeas corpus. In my own evaluation of the process of justice in the united states with respect to the administration of the habeas corpus laws, the supreme courts of America has been very instrumental in maintaining the ethics accorded to every citizen of America and all detainees on American land by outlining the limits and legal requirements justified by the laws of the land as far as the administration of law and justice are concerned. This is seen in the various judgments that the supreme judges have made over time in a bid to prevent the violation of the state’s laws. The president on the other hand as the commander- in –chief of the armed forces has the rights accorded to him to protect the state from any internal and external threats on their security and has in many occasions acted in response to such compromising situations to suspend the habeas corpus appeal of some of the detainees considered dangerous to the state a s seen in the case of Lincoln’s suspension of the habeas appeal by Merryman and his allies in South Carolina (Turner, 2002, 119). In some instances however, the president has violated the role to exercise justice as in the case of the afghan detainees being denied their rightful liberty to appeal for the habeas hearing by the bush government against the directions of the supreme courts. The congress on the other hand have only limited capacity to suspend the habeas appeals and are so less instrumental in the implementations of this as noted by Samuel Nasson, a delegate during the Massachusetts convention in 2004. Conclusion In conclusion therefore, I would like to note that the habeas corpus laws are very instrumental in complementing the civil liberties in America and the other states that have enacted the same laws in their constitutions. The law provides the best mode for exercising justice to the prisoners taking the necessary precautions to avoid the violation of human rights. Every American is therefore entitled to an undisputable right to demand the reason for his or her arrest by the authority. The supreme courts of America have also been very instrumental in upholding the needs for the observance of the law at all levels and are at all times ready to protect the rights of various individuals before the federal courts o the United States of America. References Carpenter, H. A. (1902, October). The American Historical Review. Habeas Corpus in the Colonies, 8(1), 18- 27. Hellen, A. N. (1960, April). The American Historical Review. The Most Wholesome Law—The Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, 65(3), 527- 543. Irons, P. (1999). A People's History of the Supreme Court: Political context for Parte Milligan. New York: Vintage Publishers. Jackson, V. C. (2006, January). 91 Cornell Law Review . World Habeas Corpus, 303, 309- 314. Lisa M. Seghetti and Nathan James. (2001). Congressional Research Service. Federal Habeas Corpus Relief: Background, Legislation, and Issues, 32(7), 347- 356. Turner, R. V. (2002). civil liberties. The Right to Habeas Corpus, 14(6), 115- 121. Read More