Habeas Corpus and the Use of Military Tribunals Essay -- American Hist

Habeas Corpus and the Use of Military TribunalsIn America Under the Threat of TerrorismIntroductionIt was on this date one hundred twoscore two years ago (April 25, 1861), that President Abraham capital of Nebraska sent a letter to Lt. General Winfield Scott authorizing the suspension of The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus . Lincoln had been chair for less than two months and was facing, what was up to that time and arguably may still be the greatest threat to the survival of the United States since the Founding Fathers launched this Great look into. Only eleven days earlier Major Robert Anderson, the commander of the federal garrison at Fort Sumter, South Carolina, had to surrender the fort to the Confederate Army. Lincoln was reluctant to issue such an order but had done so as he faced the very real possibility that the Maryland legislative body would convene and take action to arm the people of that state against the people of the United States .Thus began the first of several occasions in our nations level where a president when faced with a clear and present danger to our national security has had to balance fulfilling his oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution with the privilege to have any detainment reviewed by a judge or magistrate of competent jurisdiction. Problem StatementHow far may law enforcement officials go in flexible civil liberties to enhance national security? What does the Constitution say with respect to the suspension of the civil liberties in times of national emergency? How has the U.S. Supreme royal court interpreted the constitution with respect to the suspension of habeas corpus? Few citizens would disagree that national security is a legitimate function of political science. First and foremost, our national government is responsible for the protection of life, then liberty. The most ardent champions of the Bill of Rights concede that it would be foolish to treat civil liberties as inviolable when the lives of innocent thousands argon at stake. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, dissenting in a free speech case, gave these words of warning regarding civil libertiesThe choice is not betwixt order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will c... ...lue Freedom. Or it can be an indictment of our fear if we abrogate the liberties so much cherished and so dearly paid for.BibliographyRehnquist, William H. All the Laws entirely One, New York Alfred P. Knopf, 1998Blacks Law Dictionary. Abridged Seventh Ed., p. 569, West Group, St. Paul, MN (2000) Garret, Buck The Unconstitutionality of Time Limits Placed on The Great Writ, Prisoner of war in America - http//www.nov.org/garret.May97.htmRembar, Charles. The Law of the Land The Evolution of Our Legal System, pp.141 -156, Simon and Schuster, New York, (1981)Kleinfeld, Joshua. The Unio n Lincoln Made, p. 24, History Today, Vol. 47, Nov 1997.Authorities and Cases CitedU.S. Constitution, Article 1, 9Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949)Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)Ex Parte Quiran, 317 U.S. 1 (1942)Ashcroft, John. Statement to the Press re The Capture of Jose Padilla, July 10, 2002 Padilla v. Bush, et al., 233 F. Supp. 2d 564 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)Padilla v. Rumsfeld. 233 F. Supp. 2d 564, No. 02 Civ. 4445, 2003 U.S. Dist. (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2003)Padilla v. Rumsfeld. 233 F. Supp. 2d 564, No. 02 Civ. 4445, 2003 U.S. Dist. (S.D.N.Y. Apr.9, 2003)