Habeas Corpus: Should the Constitutional Clause Exclude Terrorists

Habeas Corpus: Should the Constitutional Clause Exclude Terrorists

Student Name

CLS ID: Class Identification

Instructor Name Here

Habeas Corpus: Should the Constitutional Clause Exclude Terrorists

The writ of habeas corpus can be thought of as a protection mechanism designed to ensure that imprisoned individuals be called into court in order to understand the charges against them, and to offer cause for why the detention of said individuals is invalid, illegal, or unconstitutional (Levin-Waldman, 2012).  The Constitution 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” (U.S. Const. art. I, § 9).  According to this constitutional clause, everyone facing charges within the American judicial system has an unsuspended right to evoke the writ of habeas corpus, except in cases where public safety is at risk due to potential attacks or uprisings associated with the individual to be detained.  In the case of the so-called War on Terror initiated by the Bush administration in the early 2000s, the right to the writ of habeas corpus has been suspended for many of the alleged terrorists in custody at the infamous Guantanamo Bay detainment center in Cuba.  Even though prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay are likely international terrorists who would likely be convicted of their crimes during the trial process, all people being held in American prisons for crimes against America should have access to the basic rights and protection associated with the writ of habeas corpus.

The Writ of Habeas Corpus: From European Roots to Deep-Rooted American Tradition

Farrell and Rohde (2010) denote that the roots of the establishment of the writ of habeas corpus date back to seventeenth century England, when slaves, prisoners, and even oppressed wives petitioned for the right to be freed from, perceived, unjust detainment.  Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, British judges extended the use of the writ of habeas corpus while the Parliament took action to minimize and restrain its scope and usage (Farrell & Rohde, 2010).  Farrell and Rohde (2010) also identify the originating purpose of the writ of habeas corpus as the intent to help judges establish the mutual place where an individual’s civil liberties can be protected while simultaneously protecting the public security, in order to ensure that prisoners are imprisoned according to the law.  The writ was established to offer protection to the citizens of the public by detaining criminals or harmful individuals while also protecting the accused individuals from unjust detainment.  Considering that the U.S. Constitution was established and adopted to ensure civil rights and justice for American citizens, the writ of habeas corpus is a cornerstone aspect of American freedom, civil rights, and the judicial process.  Throughout the years since the writ of habeas corpus was established in seventeenth century England, it has changed and evolved through its journey into modern day American government, society, and culture.