New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

ASHFORD POL Week 5 Final Paper Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror.docx

by: Topseller Notetaker

ASHFORD POL Week 5 Final Paper Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror.docx PRG211

Marketplace > Ashford University > Computer Programming > PRG211 > ASHFORD POL Week 5 Final Paper Civil Liberties Habeas Corpus and the War on Terror docx
Topseller Notetaker
GPA 3.9

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

ASHFORD POL Week 5 Final Paper Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror.docx
Study Guide
50 ?




Popular in

Popular in Computer Programming

This 8 page Study Guide was uploaded by Topseller Notetaker on Wednesday November 11, 2015. The Study Guide belongs to PRG211 at Ashford University taught by in Fall 2015. Since its upload, it has received 30 views. For similar materials see in Computer Programming at Ashford University.

Similar to PRG211 at AU

Popular in Computer Programming


Reviews for ASHFORD POL Week 5 Final Paper Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror.docx


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 11/11/15
Running head: WAR ON TERROR 1 Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror Name POL 201American National Government Instructor date WAR ON TERROR 2 Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror Throughout history, the motivation of man's self interest has concluded in the domination of those with little or no power in the absence of the rule of law. The war on terror presents an  unpredictable challenge for the United States whereas terrorists are apprehended and deprived of  due process. The right of Habeas corpus overrules man's interpretation, in which allows those  accused federal and state court representation before judge, or jury. It asserts that accusers  deemed innocent until proven guilty, accusers possessed the right to representation, appear in  person, and charges brought forth. This essay will concentrate on the evolution of habeas corpus, and its suspension by the United States, its relevance during the war on terror, and the United  States Supreme Court's interpretation. Nevertheless, these laws are in place to protect every one,  moreover to avoid unlawful apprehension, and ensure that habeas corpus works as intended by  the Constitution. The historical evolution of habeas corpus born from the Magna Carta, known as the  English Bill of Rights began in England in the early 1200s. Under force from English barons,  King John of England placed his signature on the Magna Carta in 1215, in which comprised of a  list of human rights and civil liberties. It asserted that the King needed consent from his  legislative body to impose taxes upon its citizens. Halliday (2011) notes that habeas corpus  serves as a writ and a scrabble parchment that a judge ordered a jailer to bring forth a named  prisoner to court to face said written charges. This very important document additionally  established that trial and due process of law must occur previous to confiscating property or  freedom from any free man who resided in England. Instead of King John stepping down from  power he agreed to place boundaries on the power of the monarchy, sign the Magna Carta,  wherein honored the constitutional rights and privileges of his countrymen. WAR ON TERROR 3 This document serves as a treaty of union, and agreement with the King wherein  guaranteed and respected the civil liberties (personal freedoms) (Levin­Waldman, 2012) of its  citizens. Only in the presence of rule of law prohibits countrymen from depriving countrymen of  basic human rights. Politicians, and citizens augur that this act occurred in America when the  national Defense authorization act (NDAA) passed in 2011. Opponents suggests that this bill  proves unconstitutional for the reason that it strips away habeas corpus, thus allowing the  detainment of American citizens suspected of terrorist activity for an indefinite period devoid of  a trial. Other politicians, and citizens consider this act stands as a breach of the Posse Comitatus  Act of 1876 in which forbid the Army's participation in domestic lawful assembly on American  soil. The suspension of habeas corpus number in the few for good reason, and presidents,  politicians, and Supreme Court justices auger whether or not the Constitution offer provisions to  commit such an act. However, the rights of habeas corpus denied by President Abraham Lincoln  in 1862 during the American Civil War, and in 2006 by President George Bush fighting the war  on terror. The reasons for the suspension of habeas corpus by Lincoln and Bush were worlds  apart as explained by Foner, (n.d.). Foner notes that Lincoln were perhaps on the threshold of  losing a nation; whereas, Bush believe it essential to detain prisoners of war without due process  of law after the attacks by terrorists on September 11, 2001.  The Military Commissions Act of 2006 signed into law by President Bush gave unlimited authority toward establishing a military commission. On the other hand, Lincoln deemed it vital  to protect a stretch of land from Baltimore to Washington DC. This railroad line involved  transportation, troop movement, and delivering supplies. Only in the occurrence of rebellion or  WAR ON TERROR 4 invasion does the president possess the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus; however, the terms rebellion, and invasion takes on several meanings, and which undergo litigating through  generations to generation. In other words, in grave situations concerning the safety of the public,  the federal government can incontestably suspend the privilege or writ of habeas corpus under  the Constitution. On July 12, 2008 majority justice Kennedy joined by Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, and  Stevens held that prisoners at Guantanamo Bay suspected of committing terrorism possess  constitutional rights, in which allows them the process of challenging their detention in the  United States civil court of law. The courts only reiterated that before the Bill of Rights appeared in the Constitution, habeas corpus stood as a civil right for prisoners of war. The Bush  administration drew heavy scrutiny regard to civil rights from majority justice Kennedy  regarding those detained at Guantanamo, in which he concluded that the Constitution warrants  nothing less than full habeas corpus. Some members of the Supreme Court consider the act of  Denying any prisoner of war, especially Afghan soldiers stands one of those extreme measures in which the government denies habeas corpus, thus committing war crimes under the Geneva  Convention. Moreover, the three branches of the United States government collectively  recognize the Geneva Convention as binding (Katyal, Bongiovanni, & Valentini, 2007). On the other hand, for many court justices denying rights to terrorists seems deserving of  anyone who sets out to kill innocent people anywhere although not in the act of war;  nevertheless, Congress does not possess the power to strike away these rights. However,  Congress provided the federal courts will habeas corpus jurisdiction from its inception, and it  will take affirmative action to withdraw jurisdiction (Vladeck, 2010).  Fighting the war on terror  WAR ON TERROR 5 proves the most unconventional war any country face. These individuals entire life consist of  killing Americans citizens or anyone (infidels) meaning those who do not accept Islamic faith  when and wherever an opportunity present itself. People speculate that should mindless rhetoric,  such as this merit traditional representation of the Constitution, and the answer varies throughout the nation. There proves a need for habeas corpus because of its humane connotation. In other  words, every form of torture, and some critics make auger that some form of torture considered  beneath the conduct of the United States; moreover those that participate in such a manner prove  not worthy of wearing the United States military uniform. Many Americans believe the Bush administration proceeded overzealously in the efforts  to fight terrorism. Nevertheless; subsequent to terrorists striking down the World Trade Center  buildings in New York City, American citizens wanted the United States to strike back  immediately with deadly force. Just under 4000 citizens perished in the attacks bestowed on New York City on September 11, 2001, and the Bush administration worked tirelessly to gather  intelligence before making decisive maneuvers to bring those responsible to justice. Niday,  (2008) notes that in the immediate wake of 9/11 the war receive near unanimous support of the  war on terror from both sides of the aisles and the Bush administration employed terms such as  illegal combatants, and enemy combatants to bolster its campaign. In times of calamity,  Americans, and people throughout the world stand at their best, and pull together in unison to aid one another. One could almost surmise that Americans may fight among each other issues of  race, politics, and human rights; however, failed to allow others to come hashed out devastation  on other Americans on American soil, or anywhere in the world. WAR ON TERROR 6 Common knowledge demonstrate that wealthier Americans; moreover, the rich in general do not serve equal time in jail for crimes committed as the poor. One have to surmise that people  work their entire lives to amass riches to achieve an advantage in the world; even if it means  special treatment in regard to unequal justice. Even though Betty v. Bradley deprived lawful  representation to accusers charged with a crime; however, unable financially to secure  representation in 1942, the Supreme Court ruled that the right of legal representation, and the  sixth amendment obligated states to provide legal counsel nonetheless (Levin­Waldman, 2012).  The writ of habeas corpus provides everyone the right to judge, jury, and trial. This law protects  citizens from tyranny, unlawful arrest, and imprisonment without legal representation. The writ  of habeas corpus presently address, or intervene between several procedures, (e.g., post  convictions, prisoners not charged with a crime, prisoners awaiting trial, death row inmates, and  prisoners serving long sentences than usual. The idea of habeas corpus will materialize often  when discussing matters of civil liberties and the Constitution, and obviously people in general  believe totally in this fundamental right. In the case of major disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina prove the shortcomings of  government, and the incorrect intelligence toward finding weapons of mass destruction only  substantiate that government assertions may turn out false. Nevertheless, that proves why the  right to habeas corpus (a fair hearing before an impartial judge) proves written in the  Constitution. Injustice anywhere prove injustice everywhere, and people in the United States  regardless of their stature, and wealth stand guarantee the fundamental rights of due process  under the law of habeas corpus. The Constitution of the United States make America the greatest country in the world; however, there are those constantly challenging the weight of the  WAR ON TERROR 7 Constitution, pushing amendments to uncharted territories, and denying fundamental rights to  those thought less deserving. Nevertheless, American patriots stand proud of the idea of a totally  free nation, in which every ethnic group, men, and women can thrive together on the rule of law. Reference Bradley, C. (2010). Clear statement rules and executive war powers. Harvard Journal of Law  and Public Policy, 33(1), 1439­148. Document ID: 1950961981.  Foley, B. (2007). Guantanamo and beyond: Dangers of rigging the rules. Journal of Criminal  Law & Criminology, 97(4), 1009­10069. Document ID: 1466824931. Retrieved from  ProQuest Central database, in the Ashford Online Library. Foner, E. (n.d.). Lincoln’s abuse of the presidential power [Video]. Available from­Abuse­of­the­Presidential­Power­294084084 FOR (2009). Gitmo and the writ of habeas corpus [Video]. Available from­and­the­Writ­of­Habeas­Corpus­516897065 Halliday, P. (2011, March 17). Habeas corpus: From England to Empire [Video]. Available  from http://www.c­­5 Katyal, N., Bongiovanni, G., & Valentini, C. (2007, December). Terrorism, emergency powers,  and the role of the U.S. Supreme Court: An interview with Neal K. Katyal. Ratio Juris,  20(4), 443­455. Retrieved from Academic search Premier (EBSCOhost), in the Ashford  Online Library. WAR ON TERROR 8 Levin­Waldman, O. M. (2012). American government. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education,  Inc. Niday, J. (2008). The war against terror as war against the Constitution. Canadian Review of  American Studies, 38(1), 101­117. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier  (EBSCOhost) database, in the Ashford Online Library. Vladeck, S. (2010). The unreviewable executive: Kiyemba, Maqaleh, and the Obama  administration. Constitutional Commentary, 26(3), 603­623. Retrieved from Academic  Search Premier (EBSCOhost) database, in the Ashford Online Library.


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

50 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."

Kyle Maynard Purdue

"When you're taking detailed notes and trying to help everyone else out in the class, it really helps you learn and understand the I made $280 on my first study guide!"

Steve Martinelli UC Los Angeles

"There's no way I would have passed my Organic Chemistry class this semester without the notes and study guides I got from StudySoup."


"Their 'Elite Notetakers' are making over $1,200/month in sales by creating high quality content that helps their classmates in a time of need."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.