POL 201 Week 5 Final Paper Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror

During America's most consequential wars, the United States government has restricted civil liberties of the American people despite the nation’s strong rooted foundation for preserving every citizen’s rights. When danger is an ever present factor for the nation due to war or conflict restrictions are often placed on some of the most basic freedoms and liberties. Perfect balancing of these restrictions is vital to the countries wellbeing. One of the most well-known examples of this type of restraint is Abraham Lincoln’s precedent of suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus and issuing martial law. Lincoln’s actions clearly violated the rights of the people that are guaranteed to them under the Constitution. While out of context it wouldn’t

The ubiquitous and prolific Dershowitz brings very unique perspectives to the table in this article and weighs in particularly on civil liberties and international justice in a time of terror. He argues passionately and persuasively that global terrorism is a phenomenon largely of our own making and that we can and must take steps to reduce the frequency and severity of terrorist acts. Dershowitz has a great deal to say and teach about the balance we are now struggling to achieve between domestic security and civil liberty.

Every person has the right to undergo a judicial hearing to avoid illegal detention. However, if that person poses threat to the society and the state, there are instances that the said right is overseen where these types of people are quickly detained after capturing. The writ of Habeas Corpus gives the rights to the captured people to undergo judicial trial. But there is also an article in the U.S. Constitution that states that the writ of Habeas Corpus can only be lifted if the people being questioned in involved in a rebellion or pose a threat to the safety of the public. That is why the administration of the previous U.S. President Bush detained all of the people whom they tagged as terrorist and were captured in the war on Afghanistan in 2001. The question now is to what extend must be the actions of an individual in order to undergo proper trial hearing or to just be put in imprisonment without any hearings or trials done? The purpose of this paper is to review issues within Habeas Corpus and GITMO, discuss how policies changing over time affect the dynamic state of United States, and how these changes can make a big impact to the future law making and practice of the country that is why this issue must be evaluated and examined.

believed to be an attack on the Constitution. President Bush suspended writs of habeas corpus

The following essay is to address the “War on Terror” and why the Patriot Act should be amended. The first part of changing the Patriot Act would be giving back the legal rights of the American people that are legal citizens. The rights of legal representation, speedy and public trials and rights to liberty also, freedom of speech, information, association and unreasonable searches have been taken away from legal citizens of the United States.

The attacks on the World Trade Center, and the Pentagon on September 11th, 2001, changed the government views on individual freedoms forever. The increase in government legislation and power led to an escalation in the attack in individual freedoms. Laws changed that expanded civil forfeiture, domestic eavesdropping, and mass collection of private phone data. The detainment of civilians by military forces and the targeting of American citizens by drones in foreign countries is common practice by the US government. The individual’s rights are now secondary as the United States fights a war on a jihadist ideology. As mentioned earlier the term war evokes fear and concern for the wellbeing of the public, the devastation and death that occurred is a justification to declare war on the factions that claimed responsibility for the events of 9/11. The specter of the lone wolf, the threat of bombing, or possibility of a coordinated attack, become the motivation for the government to violate the First, Fourth, and the Fifth Amendment with impunity.

“The danger that darkened the United States of America and the civilized world on September 11, did not pass with the atrocities committed that day”. (Ashcroft, 2003) The terrors of 9/11 caused increased security that comes at a cost that many feel is an invasion of their charter rights. The idea of racial profiling is not new, but many feel worse than ever in today’s anti-Muslim society. This habit of losing civil liberties in the wake of terror is to some an unnecessary change that is unallowable, but leaves many wondering if we should sacrifice our freedom for safety.

September 11th was a day that was burned into the conscience of the American identity. The response of the Bush Administration was to launch a full-scale military operation against terrorist entities, in particular Al Qaeda and their foreign supporters. This series of operations, became what was to be known as the “Global War on Terror”. Subsequently, the invasion of Afghanistan and other military operations resulted in the capture of high value targets with known connections to terrorist organizations. While these events this had dramatic ramifications on geo-political landscape, American courts were also given the unenviable task of determining if those captured by the U.S government were entitled to the rights and privileges enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court in particular faced a particular set of problems in confronting this issue. Precedent on the matter had been established over fifty years earlier under far different circumstances that were unable to reflect today’s modern challenges. Secondly, the Court needed to determine whether they had the jurisdictional authority to accept writs of habeas corpus from detainees held in Guantanamo Bay Cuba.

With the advent of a new age of Terrorism sweeping the world since the 9/11 attacks on America, much debate has followed as to whether the prevention of terrorist attacks should take prevalence over basic civil liberties enjoyed by any civilian of a liberal democracy. If we take the definition of civil liberties to be “Fundamental individual rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, protected by law against unwarranted governmental or other interference” , it is very hard to envisage a society in which both can exist.

Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror have all played a role throughout history. Throughout history, the motivation of man’s self interest has concluded in the domination of those with little or no power in the absence of the rule of law. The war on terror presents an unpredictable challenge for the United States since terrorists are apprehended and deprived of due process. Habeas corpus is considered to be one of the most fundamental guarantees of personal liberty that we cherished as a country since the inception of our Constitution. However, debates have arisen regarding the proper

The right to liberty and privacy is compromised through existing counter-terrorism measures and appropriate steps have not been taken to protect them. Protection of rights is provided disproportionately amongst terror suspects at the discretion of the

During WWII, our government had to do its utmost to ensure domestic security against dangerous elements in its midst. But it should have exercised greater vigilance to protect the liberties of those most vulnerable because of their ethnic ties to enemy nations. Some were dangerous, but too many were assumed guilty and never able to prove their innocence. Admittedly, US wartime governmental actions are difficult to assess decades later. To prevent possible future erosion of our civil liberties, however, the federal government must fully review and acknowledge its wartime civil liberties violations. A comprehensive federal review of the European American experience has never been done. On August 3, 2001, Senators Russell Feingold (D-WI) and

Even though habeas corpus looks to be limited to detainees classified as enemy combatants and/or illegal enemy combatants, it eventually puts all citizens at risk. The War against Terrorism is clearly not a conventional war and the terrorist enemy is not readily apparent. Activities ranging from political activism, internet usage to travel can raise red flags to security and intelligence officers putting anyone, however innocent, under the national security microscope. Furthermore, because of the religious and racial factors involved in the Middle Eastern terrorism scare since 9/11, certain minority populations are more likely to be targeted for government action, whether it is justified or not. The implication is that this war will be fought internally as much as abroad, making everyone a potential suspect that could be

The fight against terrorism has always raised concerns that the methods used by States may infringe human rights. As one leading academic, Professor Martin Scheinin,[1] has said “Governments have often felt tempted to depart from … the fundamental rights of the individual when confronted with acts of terrorism….”[2]

Instructions: This paper has three parts. You must use complete sentences and not point form. Remember that you must cite and reference your work. See the Writing Guide on the course site for more assistance.