Restrictions on Habeas Corpus (73)
Colleene1024: Habeas Corpus is a centuries old legal mechanism that prevents government from arbitrarily detaining its citizens. Its originated in medieval England and operates in many countries influenced by the English common-law tradition. In the USA Habeas Corpus a petition to a state or federal court, on behalf of a prisoner, requesting that the court review the basis of the person’s detention. Habeas Corpus is considered to be one of the foundations of constitutional democracy and the principle has been adopted by many countries throughout the world. In the United States Habeas Corpus is a fundamental piece of the legal system that allows capital defendants to challenge death penalty rulings and immigration detainees to challenge the legality of their detention. It is protected by Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, which states, “The privilege of the write of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”
After the attacks of September 11 2001, the Bush administration began to challenge the applicability of Habeas Corpus to terror suspect detainees. The legal and political battles around restrictions to Habeas Corpus have been fierce. Most recently, in Boumediene vs Bush, the Supreme Court held that terror suspects detained at Guantanamo Bay are protected by Habeas Corpus.
The Debatabase Book, 4th Edition with additional material by the Editor ( United States ) Should the ancient right of Habeas Corpus be limited or suspended as part of efforts to combat terrorism?
IMO There is no reason why the United States cannot uphold constitutional protections such as Habeas Corpus and effectively combat terrorism at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, ensuring that suspected terrorists have access to Federal courts will save much-needed resources and ensure more accurate administration of justice. In the present case, it is unclear which of the Guantanamo detainees actually committed the acts that are used to justify their indefinite detention. Allowing detainees to challenge their detention would bring clarity to this uncertain situation and free up resources in the war against terrorism.
After the attacks of September 11 2001, the Bush administration began to challenge the applicability of Habeas Corpus to terror suspect detainees. The legal and political battles around restrictions to Habeas Corpus have been fierce. Most recently, in Boumediene vs Bush, the Supreme Court held that terror suspects detained at Guantanamo Bay are protected by Habeas Corpus.
The Debatabase Book, 4th Edition with additional material by the Editor ( United States ) Should the ancient right of Habeas Corpus be limited or suspended as part of efforts to combat terrorism?
IMO There is no reason why the United States cannot uphold constitutional protections such as Habeas Corpus and effectively combat terrorism at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, ensuring that suspected terrorists have access to Federal courts will save much-needed resources and ensure more accurate administration of justice. In the present case, it is unclear which of the Guantanamo detainees actually committed the acts that are used to justify their indefinite detention. Allowing detainees to challenge their detention would bring clarity to this uncertain situation and free up resources in the war against terrorism.
The key of the debate is whether to treat this as a criminal matter or as an act of war. The laws of war and criminal law are very different.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Colleene1024: Habeas Corpus is a centuries old legal mechanism that prevents government from arbitrarily detaining its citizens. Its originated in medieval England and operates in many countries influenced by the English common-law tradition. In the USA Habeas Corpus a petition to a state or federal court, on behalf of a prisoner, requesting that the court review the basis of the person’s detention. Habeas Corpus is considered to be one of the foundations of constitutional democracy and the principle has been adopted by many countries throughout the world. In the United States Habeas Corpus is a fundamental piece of the legal system that allows capital defendants to challenge death penalty rulings and immigration detainees to challenge the legality of their detention. It is protected by Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, which states, “The privilege of the write of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”
After the attacks of September 11 2001, the Bush administration began to challenge the applicability of Habeas Corpus to terror suspect detainees. The legal and political battles around restrictions to Habeas Corpus have been fierce. Most recently, in Boumediene vs Bush, the Supreme Court held that terror suspects detained at Guantanamo Bay are protected by Habeas Corpus.
The Debatabase Book, 4th Edition with additional material by the Editor ( United States ) Should the ancient right of Habeas Corpus be limited or suspended as part of efforts to combat terrorism?
IMO There is no reason why the United States cannot uphold constitutional protections such as Habeas Corpus and effectively combat terrorism at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, ensuring that suspected terrorists have access to Federal courts will save much-needed resources and ensure more accurate administration of justice. In the present case, it is unclear which of the Guantanamo detainees actually committed the acts that are used to justify their indefinite detention. Allowing detainees to challenge their detention would bring clarity to this uncertain situation and free up resources in the war against terrorism.
Shouldn't the Question be,whether an Unlawful Combatant,captured on a Foreign Battlefield have the Protection of the United States Constitution?After the attacks of September 11 2001, the Bush administration began to challenge the applicability of Habeas Corpus to terror suspect detainees. The legal and political battles around restrictions to Habeas Corpus have been fierce. Most recently, in Boumediene vs Bush, the Supreme Court held that terror suspects detained at Guantanamo Bay are protected by Habeas Corpus.
The Debatabase Book, 4th Edition with additional material by the Editor ( United States ) Should the ancient right of Habeas Corpus be limited or suspended as part of efforts to combat terrorism?
IMO There is no reason why the United States cannot uphold constitutional protections such as Habeas Corpus and effectively combat terrorism at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, ensuring that suspected terrorists have access to Federal courts will save much-needed resources and ensure more accurate administration of justice. In the present case, it is unclear which of the Guantanamo detainees actually committed the acts that are used to justify their indefinite detention. Allowing detainees to challenge their detention would bring clarity to this uncertain situation and free up resources in the war against terrorism.
------ This thread is Archived ------
gardenhackle: The key of the debate is whether to treat this as a criminal matter or as an act of war. The laws of war and criminal law are very different.
Actually, it is more about the act of terrorism. Will the Habeas Corpus Help or hinder the US on terrorism?
------ This thread is Archived ------
An excellent article by Peter Goodgame, The Globalists and the Islamists, the Globalists have had a hand in shaping and financing all the terrorist organizations of the twentieth century, including the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, Hamas of Palestine and the Afghan Mujahideen. But the history of their duplicity dates farther back still, to the 18th Century, when British Freemasons created the Wahhabi sect of Saudi Arabia itself, to further their imperialistic objectives.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Colleene1024: Actually, it is more about the act of terrorism. Will the Habeas Corpus Help or hinder the US on terrorism?
The people in Guantanamo bay weren't arrested for acts of terrorism on American soil. That would be handled in the criminal systems most likely as previous incidences were. It was the Al Queda members captured during war that are in Guantanamo Bay.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Conrad73: Shouldn't the Question be,whether an Unlawful Combatant,captured on a Foreign Battlefield have the Protection of the United States Constitution?
Yes, we're on the same page, Conrad. That's the central debate from a legal standpoint.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Conrad73: Shouldn't the Question be,whether an Unlawful Combatant,captured on a Foreign Battlefield have the Protection of the United States Constitution?
Is that fair that one of the parties to the conflict is making the determination about the status of a combatant?------ This thread is Archived ------
gardenhackle: The people in Guantanamo bay weren't arrested for acts of terrorism on American soil. That would be handled in the criminal systems most likely as previous incidences were. It was the Al Queda members captured during war that are in Guantanamo Bay.
My mistake..Thank You.
------ This thread is Archived ------
gleneagle: Is that fair that one of the parties to the conflict is making the determination about the status of a combatant?
Unlawful enemy combatants are not US citizens. The only connection they have to this country is the desire to destroy it. As such, they do not fall within the group of people the Constitution is intended to protect.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Conrad73: Shouldn't the Question be,whether an Unlawful Combatant,captured on a Foreign Battlefield have the Protection of the United States Constitution?
I do not agree with the USA's Rendition of suspects and the way many folk were dragged in to the problem, by certain folk denouncing them
If the person was captured or detained on a battlefield he/she may actually be a member of the opposition and the rendition back the US territory and the way it was done is actually kidnap.
The detention of spies and proven war criminals yes but to do it the way the USA and lesser by the UK is wrong.
It did the USA no good in the eyes of the world the way they went about it and the cost to the taxpayer must be horrendous just in compensation claims alone.
------ This thread is Archived ------
gleneagle: Is that fair that one of the parties to the conflict is making the determination about the status of a combatant?
Told you before,Geneva Convention is clear on that!Look it up!
------ This thread is Archived ------
There are pros and cons to this whole debate which is why I chose it. It gives everyone a chance to chose their side and give their own stand point on it. 
------ This thread is Archived ------
patmac: I do not agree with the USA's Rendition of suspects and the way many folk were dragged in to the problem, by certain folk denouncing them
If the person was captured or detained on a battlefield he/she may actually be a member of the opposition and the rendition back the US territory and the way it was done is actually kidnap.
The detention of spies and proven war criminals yes but to do it the way the USA and lesser by the UK is wrong.
It did the USA no good in the eyes of the world the way they went about it and the cost to the taxpayer must be horrendous just in compensation claims alone.
Were German Prisoners of War,interned in the US kidnapped?If the person was captured or detained on a battlefield he/she may actually be a member of the opposition and the rendition back the US territory and the way it was done is actually kidnap.
The detention of spies and proven war criminals yes but to do it the way the USA and lesser by the UK is wrong.
It did the USA no good in the eyes of the world the way they went about it and the cost to the taxpayer must be horrendous just in compensation claims alone.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Colleene1024: Unlawful enemy combatants are not US citizens. The only connection they have to this country is the desire to destroy it. As such, they do not fall within the group of people the Constitution is intended to protect.
So Is that why John Walker Lindh was taken back and given twenty years after he was arrested post Taliban uprising?------ This thread is Archived ------
Colleene1024: There are pros and cons to this whole debate which is why I chose it. It gives everyone a chance to chose their side and give their own stand point on it.
The Question is definitely giving Legal Minds a Headache,even though they have more Sources available to them for Research than we do!------ This thread is Archived ------
patmac: I do not agree with the USA's Rendition of suspects and the way many folk were dragged in to the problem, by certain folk denouncing them
If the person was captured or detained on a battlefield he/she may actually be a member of the opposition and the rendition back the US territory and the way it was done is actually kidnap.
The detention of spies and proven war criminals yes but to do it the way the USA and lesser by the UK is wrong.
It did the USA no good in the eyes of the world the way they went about it and the cost to the taxpayer must be horrendous just in compensation claims alone.
If the person was captured or detained on a battlefield he/she may actually be a member of the opposition and the rendition back the US territory and the way it was done is actually kidnap.
The detention of spies and proven war criminals yes but to do it the way the USA and lesser by the UK is wrong.
It did the USA no good in the eyes of the world the way they went about it and the cost to the taxpayer must be horrendous just in compensation claims alone.
It's basically saying that we should not fight a war with one hand tied behind our backs. Also, The events of September 11 constituted an unprecedented attack on American soil. The US government must do everything in its power to ensure that the individuals responsible cannot participate in further terrorist activities. Restricting suspected terrorists’ rights to challenge their detentions is necessary to achieve that goal. Terror suspects still have recourse to military tribunals, which contain many of the same safeguards as the federal court system.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Colleene1024: Habeas Corpus is a centuries old legal mechanism that prevents government from arbitrarily detaining its citizens. Its originated in medieval England and operates in many countries influenced by the English common-law tradition. In the USA Habeas Corpus a petition to a state or federal court, on behalf of a prisoner, requesting that the court review the basis of the person’s detention. Habeas Corpus is considered to be one of the foundations of constitutional democracy and the principle has been adopted by many countries throughout the world. In the United States Habeas Corpus is a fundamental piece of the legal system that allows capital defendants to challenge death penalty rulings and immigration detainees to challenge the legality of their detention. It is protected by Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, which states, “The privilege of the write of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”
After the attacks of September 11 2001, the Bush administration began to challenge the applicability of Habeas Corpus to terror suspect detainees. The legal and political battles around restrictions to Habeas Corpus have been fierce. Most recently, in Boumediene vs Bush, the Supreme Court held that terror suspects detained at Guantanamo Bay are protected by Habeas Corpus.
The Debatabase Book, 4th Edition with additional material by the Editor ( United States ) Should the ancient right of Habeas Corpus be limited or suspended as part of efforts to combat terrorism?
IMO There is no reason why the United States cannot uphold constitutional protections such as Habeas Corpus and effectively combat terrorism at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, ensuring that suspected terrorists have access to Federal courts will save much-needed resources and ensure more accurate administration of justice. In the present case, it is unclear which of the Guantanamo detainees actually committed the acts that are used to justify their indefinite detention. Allowing detainees to challenge their detention would bring clarity to this uncertain situation and free up resources in the war against terrorism.
After the attacks of September 11 2001, the Bush administration began to challenge the applicability of Habeas Corpus to terror suspect detainees. The legal and political battles around restrictions to Habeas Corpus have been fierce. Most recently, in Boumediene vs Bush, the Supreme Court held that terror suspects detained at Guantanamo Bay are protected by Habeas Corpus.
The Debatabase Book, 4th Edition with additional material by the Editor ( United States ) Should the ancient right of Habeas Corpus be limited or suspended as part of efforts to combat terrorism?
IMO There is no reason why the United States cannot uphold constitutional protections such as Habeas Corpus and effectively combat terrorism at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, ensuring that suspected terrorists have access to Federal courts will save much-needed resources and ensure more accurate administration of justice. In the present case, it is unclear which of the Guantanamo detainees actually committed the acts that are used to justify their indefinite detention. Allowing detainees to challenge their detention would bring clarity to this uncertain situation and free up resources in the war against terrorism.
You answered your own question right in the first sentence with the words "its CITIZENS". THE GUANTANOMO DETAINEES ARE NOT US CITIZENS...therefore Habeus Corpus does not apply to them. If any of them are US citizens, then yes of course the law may pertain to them. The Constitution gives protection to US CITIZENS only and rightly so. Not protection to foreign enemy combatants.
------ This thread is Archived ------
gleneagle: So Is that why John Walker Lindh was taken back and given twenty years after he was arrested post Taliban uprising?
Well, we all know how the Taliban works Glen. I am ignorant on the name so I will have to do some research on him and the situation.
I admit...I do not know everything. ------ This thread is Archived ------
Conrad73: The Question is definitely giving Legal Minds a Headache,even though they have more Sources available to them for Research than we do!
Well, This is better the SB's Zion threads!
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
Would you hire this guy - for any job?
your favorite topic?
the way you look
More Proof The GOP is a Criminal Organization
men's perspective towards women
Karen McDougal - Playmate Model will testify in Hush Money Trial
I'm a 53 YEAR'S YUNG MAN that lives back in the 80s
Gal / sdarlagg passed away on April 10, 2024
Ladies
Why is this shameful?
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Stats for this Thread
2,492 Views
72 Comments
Created: Feb 2011
Last Viewed: 23 hrs ago
Last Commented: Feb 2011
0 Likes
Related Forums
- Would you hire this guy - for any job?
- your favorite topic?
- the way you look
- More Proof The GOP is a Criminal Organization
- men's perspective towards women
- Karen McDougal - Playmate Model will testify in Hush Money Trial
- I'm a 53 YEAR'S YUNG MAN that lives back in the 80s
- Gal / sdarlagg passed away on April 10, 2024
- Ladies
- Why is this shameful?
After the attacks of September 11 2001, the Bush administration began to challenge the applicability of Habeas Corpus to terror suspect detainees. The legal and political battles around restrictions to Habeas Corpus have been fierce. Most recently, in Boumediene vs Bush, the Supreme Court held that terror suspects detained at Guantanamo Bay are protected by Habeas Corpus.
The Debatabase Book, 4th Edition with additional material by the Editor ( United States )
Should the ancient right of Habeas Corpus be limited or suspended as part of efforts to combat terrorism?
IMO There is no reason why the United States cannot uphold constitutional protections such as Habeas Corpus and effectively combat terrorism at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, ensuring that suspected terrorists have access to Federal courts will save much-needed resources and ensure more accurate administration of justice. In the present case, it is unclear which of the Guantanamo detainees actually committed the acts that are used to justify their indefinite detention. Allowing detainees to challenge their detention would bring clarity to this uncertain situation and free up resources in the war against terrorism.