Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror (Essay Sample)

Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and War on Terror
Name
Institution
Introduction
As the United States experienced fresh threats to national security in the wake of the unprecedented 9/ 11 suicide attacks, the country’s domestic and foreign policy underwent a series of dramatic changes (Van Bergen, 2003). Even as the demise of Osama bin Laden marked an important milestone in the US-led war on terror, it appears as though the government still violates certain fundamental human rights and civil liberties. By just about every measure, the government still spies on its citizens, as uncovered in the 2013 Snowden-NSA dossier. Likewise, suspected terrorists are denied equal protection and the due process through unlawful detention under the auspices of the Patriot Act (Segev, 2005). Suspension of habeas corpus for enemy combatants during the war on terror has sparked mixed reactions. As many welcomed the move citing security concerns, others expressed disgrace with what they termed sheer abuse of liberty. One could even say that this amounts to reckless disregard of human rights and civil liberties occurring in the pretext of national security. While it is reasonable to ask citizens to sacrifice some of their rights and freedoms for the greater good of the nation, the manner in which the state infringes on civil liberties may raise certain concerns. Protection of basic rights and liberties should supersede any other consideration.
Habeas Corpus
Professor Nathaniel Whitmore of Stanford University explains that the writ of Habeas Corpus is a legal remedy issued as a summons in the form of a court order (Doyle, 2006). It allows common law courts to determine the legality of any form of detention; it requires the custodian to present the court with proof that the detention in question is lawful and that the custodian has legal authority over the matter. If the court finds that the custodian has superseded their authority in any way, the prisoner is released under the auspice of habeas corpus as a legal remedy. Any detainee is as such eligible to petition the court for a writ of habeas corpus. It is worthy to note that the writ of habeas corpus is merely a procedural remedy. This is to say that it only protects prisoners from unlawful detention and does not necessarily address other rights such as right to fair trial or assistance to counsel. If the prisoners in question have no capacity to facilitate their own trial, habeas corpus may not apply as a remedy (Freedman, 2001).
The underlying legal principle in habeas corpus is protection of individual liberty as stipulated under the constitutions of Commonwealth countries. In the United States, it occurs under the purview of the Bill of Rights. Habeas corpus traces its roots in England. The first documented usage was in 1305 as it were habeas corpus ad subjiciendum (Freedman, 2001). The Crown to the thirteen American colonies in the New World later applied it. In present-day United States, the constitution unequivocally stipulates the habeas procedure in Article 1, Section 9. As a legal remedy, habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless in face of extenuating circumstances such as rebellion or invasion of public security. During the Civil War days and the Reconstruction era, Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses Grant (respectively) suspended habeas corpus citing the suspension clause of Article 1 (Freedman, 2001).
9/11, Patriot Act, and Civil Liberties
September 11, 2001 – commonly referred to as 9/ 11 – was marked by ‘premeditated and coordinated terrorist attacks’ that targeted New York City and Washington D.C. (Segev, 2005). In the infamous ‘Letter to America, Osama bin Laden claimed responsibility accusing the US of occupying the holiest of places in the Arabian Peninsula, humiliating its religion, undermining its culture, and imposing their imperial western civilization. Bin Laden warned that the United States was ‘too close to Mecca’ (Herman, 2011).
In the wake of 9/ 11, the US Congress convened to enact the landmark Patriot Act in a series of rushed deliberations with the aim of countering the terrorist menace (Brasch, 2005). To the American people, the enactment of the Patriot Act appeared to be a measure of national security. Some say that nobody even bothered to read the Patriot Act. If they had, they would have scrapped the parts that allowed for the blatant disregard of civil liberties through unlawful detention. The Patriot Act practically suspended habeas corpus for suspected terrorists in the detention camp in Guantanamo Bay (Segev, 2005).
Human rights watchdogs accused the Bush administration of using the war on terror as a loophole to detain unlawfully enemy combatants and denying them their right to minimal judicial review as provided in the writ of habeas corpus. Such extra-judicial detentions sparked widespread outrage. While many welcomed the move citing security concerns, others expressed disgrace with what they termed sheer abuse of liberty. The Bill of Rights protects individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Denying enemy combatants their right to due process is a blatant constitutional violation. Debate on this issue continued as public opinion remained sharply divided (Herman, 2011).
As the democrats advocate for human rights and civil liberties, the republicans maintain that citizens must sacrifice these privileges in face of threats to national security. As such, the war against terrorism has since become a partisan political issue in the United States. While it is reasonable to ask citizens to sacrifice some of their rights and freedoms for the greater good of the nation, the manner in which the state infringes on civil liberties may raise certain concerns. For instance, when the government uses this as an opportunity to wage disingenuous political agenda at the expense of the citizens then it becomes unjustifiable (Herman, 2011).
The suspension of habeas corpus for enemy combatants, however beneficial in times of distress, amounts to abuse of liberty. It is not a question of whether it is right or wrong since clearly this particular debate could go on ad infinitum; it is a mere indication that there is a better way to go about it, a way that does not involve blatant abuse of civil liberties. In the modern age, humanity ought to have come up with a better solution to the war on terrorism.
Sources retrieved from the annals indicate that the Patriot Act dramatically eased restrictions on federal regulations to gather both foreign and domestic intelligence, arrest and detain suspected terrorists, and to conduct unwarranted searches and seizures. Law enforcement agencies gained the mandate to infringe on civil liberties and violate basic human rights. This has been perpetuated through media propaganda and deceptive framing in a way that causes hysteria, mutual suspicion and pervasive feelings of insecurity (Van Bergen, 2003).
Through the Patriot Act, the US Congress extended the authority of the federal government to conduct undue surveillance on aliens (lone wolves) and citizens in which there was probable cause to believe that they were engaging in terrorist related activities. It eased the legal restriction on domestic wiretapping subsequently granting federal law enforcement agencies gained the mandate to intercept email conversations, phone logs, messaging and other forms of communicative interactions between citizens and aliens on American soil. Observers expressed concerns that violating the privacy of American citizens calling it treacherous slope since there is real foreseeable danger. Undue surveillance leaves citizens overexposed and vulnerable in such a way that it hurts more than it helps. It is reasonable, therefore, to argue that undue surveillance risks the wellbeing of citizens and not guarantee safety as per the common misperception.
A section of scholars have taken issue with the manner in which the federal government denied suspected terrorist the due process of law as stipulated under the constitution. The government even commissioned the establishment of a torture chamber in Guantanamo Bay. This amounts to gross violation of human rights and civil liberties. There is another clause in the patriot act dubbed “enhanced surveillance procedures.” (Van Bergen, 2003)
Likewise, the Terrorist Bombings Convention Implementation Act of 2002 introduced yet another capital offense punishable via execution s...