Habeas corpus is considered the “great writ of liberty” in both the English and American constitutional values. The writ allows individuals to challenge imprisonment as unlawful. There are many issues surrounding terrorism, civil liberties, and presidential power in regards to the ongoing debate about habeas corpus and the war on terror. Although civil rights should be protected and detainees should be dealt with on an individual basis by the Supreme Court, the President of the United States should have full authority to suspend the right of habeas corpus to those who are suspected of terrorism, especially during times that are declared as a “national emergency.” Derived from English common law, habeas corpus first appeared in the Magna Carta of 1215 and is considered the oldest human right in the history of English-speaking civilization. The doctrine of habeas corpus stems from the requirement that a government can either charge a person or must let him go free (Rutherford, 2013).
The Bill of Rights Introduction to Criminal Justice March 3, 2013 There are many legal rights that we have during a trial. This Bill of Rights provides certain rights to criminal defendants during trial. There are two aspects of the U.S. criminal justice system and they are the defendant is innocent until the prosecution can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (NOLO: Law for All, 2013). Defendants have many other rights and here they will be discussed. The right to confront witnesses is stated that in the sixth amendment “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witness against him.” They are allowed to participate in the accused’s trial process.
However, with the “due process an individual is allowed their day in court if suspected of a crime because of United States constitution. Therefore giving that individual a right to a fair trial with an option for a jury of his or hers peers. It is the responsibility of the courts system to provide strong evidence on an individual accused of committing a crime beyond reasonable doubt. Strong evidence is important to avoid sending an individual to prison if they are innocent (Siegel, J. L.,
Also people that are in corrections are there to maintain justice. These three components of the criminal justice system work together to create punishment for individuals that are proven guilty and help to stop them from committing other crimes, all while maintaining fairness, and keeping the rest of society safe. The basic rights of citizens are affected by criminal law by preventing citizens from doing any and everything they want to do. As citizens of the United States, we already have basic rights that we are awarded with by being born an American citizen. Basic rights are protected by criminal law.
Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror Habeas Corpus is one of the writs that are issued in order to bring any individual, groups or party before a judge. It is the right of every citizen to obtain this writ, as when something goes wrong or someone faces any wrong or bad situation and they require help and support from the law and order of the country. The people believe that they should be given a fair chance to speak and make their point clear so as to justify themselves and their acts. For this purpose it is necessary to bring the individual or party before the judge or before the court. In this case, the judges decide whether the detention of the brought person is lawful or not lawful (Farell, 2010).
We should be able to say whatever it is that we want. Even back then they shouldn't be able to put somebody into jail for saying a negative comment about the government or even a leader. They should have had the right to say what they wanted to and to express the way that they felt about it. The Patriot Act was passed for much the same reason as the Alien and Sedition Acts. It was made law in our response to the fear of terrorism caused by the events of 9/11.
RUNNING HEAD: THE PATRIOT ACT V CIVIL LIBERTIES The Patriot Act V. Civil Liberties Demetra Ohlen Saint Leo University Legal Issues in Criminal Justice Administration II CRM 551 Professor Jordan November 14, 2008 Abstract Since its inception, The Patriot Act has engendered a tremendous of controversy. Adversaries of the Act have maintained that it was approved opportunistically after the September 11 terrorist assault, believing there to have been little debate. They view the Act as one that was hurried through the Senate with little change before it was passed. The Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial and other records The Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial and other records; eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expands the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and enhances the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expands the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA Patriot Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.
Prior to the 9/11 attacks the focus of the FBI and intelligence collection was in the prosecution of terrorists rather than the prevention of attacks. This means that the defensive action would be in response to the actions of terrorist rather than collecting information in attempt to preemptively stop an attack. However announced, this has always been a priority and information concerning prevention was always required in annual reports. It is important to understand what prevention means and the information being searched for: “Who are the terrorists among us? Who are their leaders?
The USA Patriot act is a legislation passed by congress for stronger security controls ("USA patriot act," 2001). This act was a result of September 11th attacks, and the 2001 anthrax attacks. The act contains ten titles; enhancing domestic security against terrorism, surveillance procedures, anti-money laundering to prevent terrorism, border security, removing obstacles to investigate terrorism, victims and families of victims of terrorism, increased information sharing for critical infrastructure protection, terrorism criminal law, improved intelligence, and miscellaneous ("USA patriot act," 2001). Title I, enhancing domestic security against terrorism provides funds for terrorist prevention security services, and for the terrorist screening center administered by the FBI ("USA patriot act," 2001). Title II, surveillance procedures, allows agencies to use enhanced surveillance procedures for any suspected terrorist.
When evaluating the President’s relationship in regards to habeas corpus, one must first consider whether or not the President even has the right to confine individuals. “Absent a military conflict, the answer is likely no, whereas when Congress specifically authorizes detention, the answer is certainly yes” (Howe, 2014, p. 678). After 9/11, Congress had passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). AUMF allowed the President to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organization or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons” (Howe, 2014, p. 678). No matter what AUMF says however, one thing that it does not clearly state is whether or not the President is allowed to confine individuals.