Habeas Corpus Rights Vs War On Terror Essay

1027 Words5 Pages

Habeas Corpus Rights vs. the War on Terror
Habeas Corpus is a centuries old legal mechanism enacted by the Magna Carta, signed by King John of England in 1215, and is an important part of the British Common Law tradition, and now, the American legal system. It is one of the foundations of constitutional democracy, and an internationally applied principle, mandating that a government cannot arbitrarily detain its citizens. Ever since the terrorist attacks on 9/11, however, the United States has been fully involved in a war against terrorism, and the application of Habeas Corpus is coming under question.
Recently, many politicians, including the former Bush Administration called for a change in its applicability when relating to terror suspects. This is an unquestionable act of tyranny, and it should cease. Suspects of terrorism must receive Habeas Corpus rights …show more content…

The United States should take heed of the precedent in Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom suspended Habeas Corpus to arrest suspected IRA activists. Rather than suppress the organization, as intended, it increased support for the IRA, and radicalized Catholic youths, who sweepingly joined the IRA. This proves that suspending Habeas Corpus does not work and is unactable for the War on Terror.
In addition, the government should not suspend Habeas Corpus rights for suspected terrorists as it establishes a dangerous precedent for the treatment of captured American or coalition citizens and soldiers. If we disregard the protections of Habeas Corpus, it will set up a dangerous precedent for other nations to follow. Citizens or soldiers of America or its coalition members could receive indefinite detainments and could lack basic legal procedure if captured by foreign forces. This is a concerning matter in the case of journalists, who travel internationally to cover news, and are most at