This House would restrict the right to Habeas Corpus as part of efforts to combat terrorism

Restricting suspected terrorists’ rights to challenge their detention is necessary to ensure that that individual cannot participate in future terrorist activities. The attacks of September 11^th constituted a catastrophic and unprecedented attack on US soil, and the measures undertaken by the US at Guantanamo Bay, in holding many terrorist suspects without trial, are necessary to prevent future attacks of that nature. Terror suspects still have recourse to military tribunals, which contain many of the same safeguards as the federal court system

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.

Unlawful enemy combatants are not US citizens. The only connection they have to the US is the desire to destroy it. As such, they do not fall within the group of people the Constitution is intended to protect.[1]

[1] BBC News, ‘Guantanamo appeal denied’, 12 March 2003, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2842093.stm

Via legal precedent,[1] Habeas Corpus protections extend to foreign nationals detained in the US. Furthermore, to focus solely on the immigration status and purported guilt of suspected terrorists ignore the fact that Habeas Corpus exists to protect us all. Eliminating the rights for “bad people” necessarily eliminates them for the innocent as well.

[1] Supreme Court of the United States, Boumediene v Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1195.ZS.html

There is a longstanding tradition of suspending Habeas Corpus protections during times of war and conflict. For example, President Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War.[1] Habeas Corpus was also suspended briefly in the Hawaii during World War II, immediately after the attacks on Pearl Harbour.[2] In the UK, Habeas Corpus was suspended in 1794, after the French declared war on Britain,[3] and in 1817,[4] in order to arrest parliamentary reformers. In 1971 Habeas Corpus was again suspended in the UK in order that IRA suspects could be arrested and detained.[5] 9/11 and other Al Qaeda plots require that Western countries respond in just as determined a way. The war on terror may not follow the rules of traditional warfare, but it is a war nonetheless. These precedents show that, in certain circumstances, the suspension of Habeas Corpus is both necessary and justified.

[1] Lincoln, Abraham, ‘Proclamation Suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus’, teachingamericanhistory.org, 24 September 1862, http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=425

[2] Anthony, J. Garner, Hawaii under Army Rule, Stanford University Press, p.5, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=V66lAAAAIAAJ

[3] Holmberg, Tom, ‘Great Britain: Suspension of Habeas Corpus. 7 May 1794’, The Napoleon Series, July 2002, http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/government/british/c_habeus.html

[4] ‘Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill’, Hansard, 24 June 1817, vol.36, cc1145-55, http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1817/jun/24/habeas-corpus-suspension-bill

[5] Wilkinson, Paul, Terrorism versus Democracy: The Liberal State Response, 2^nd ed., Routledge, 2006, p.82, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uq6oCZF7iHcC&dq

The current war on terror is not comparable to past wars during which Habeas Corpus was suspended. Both the Civil War and World War II were openly declared wars of limited duration following invasions by hostile forces. The “war on terror” is nebulous and open-ended. In any case, history has harshly judged arbitrary detentions during wartime. Lincoln’s Civil War detentions and Roosevelt’s Japanese internment camps of the 1940s are embarrassing chapters in US national history. The fact that former presidents improperly suspended Habeas Corpus is all the more reason to exercise caution now. Additionally, the suspension of Habeas Corpus by the UK in 1971 arguably strengthened the cause of the IRA, and made it easier for the organisation to recruit members. Western governments should be careful not to repeat the mistakes of the past

Restricting suspected terrorists’ rights to challenge their detention is necessary to ensure that that individual cannot participate in future terrorist activities. The attacks of September 11^th constituted a catastrophic and unprecedented attack on US soil, and the measures undertaken by the US at Guantanamo Bay, in holding many terrorist suspects without trial, are necessary to prevent future attacks of that nature. Terror suspects still have recourse to military tribunals, which contain many of the same safeguards as the federal court system

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.

Unlawful enemy combatants are not US citizens. The only connection they have to the US is the desire to destroy it. As such, they do not fall within the group of people the Constitution is intended to protect.[1]

[1] BBC News, ‘Guantanamo appeal denied’, 12 March 2003, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2842093.stm

Via legal precedent,[1] Habeas Corpus protections extend to foreign nationals detained in the US. Furthermore, to focus solely on the immigration status and purported guilt of suspected terrorists ignore the fact that Habeas Corpus exists to protect us all. Eliminating the rights for “bad people” necessarily eliminates them for the innocent as well.

[1] Supreme Court of the United States, Boumediene v Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1195.ZS.html

There is a longstanding tradition of suspending Habeas Corpus protections during times of war and conflict. For example, President Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War.[1] Habeas Corpus was also suspended briefly in the Hawaii during World War II, immediately after the attacks on Pearl Harbour.[2] In the UK, Habeas Corpus was suspended in 1794, after the French declared war on Britain,[3] and in 1817,[4] in order to arrest parliamentary reformers. In 1971 Habeas Corpus was again suspended in the UK in order that IRA suspects could be arrested and detained.[5] 9/11 and other Al Qaeda plots require that Western countries respond in just as determined a way. The war on terror may not follow the rules of traditional warfare, but it is a war nonetheless. These precedents show that, in certain circumstances, the suspension of Habeas Corpus is both necessary and justified.

[1] Lincoln, Abraham, ‘Proclamation Suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus’, teachingamericanhistory.org, 24 September 1862, http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=425

[2] Anthony, J. Garner, Hawaii under Army Rule, Stanford University Press, p.5, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=V66lAAAAIAAJ

[3] Holmberg, Tom, ‘Great Britain: Suspension of Habeas Corpus. 7 May 1794’, The Napoleon Series, July 2002, http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/government/british/c_habeus.html

[4] ‘Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill’, Hansard, 24 June 1817, vol.36, cc1145-55, http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1817/jun/24/habeas-corpus-suspension-bill

[5] Wilkinson, Paul, Terrorism versus Democracy: The Liberal State Response, 2^nd ed., Routledge, 2006, p.82, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uq6oCZF7iHcC&dq

The current war on terror is not comparable to past wars during which Habeas Corpus was suspended. Both the Civil War and World War II were openly declared wars of limited duration following invasions by hostile forces. The “war on terror” is nebulous and open-ended. In any case, history has harshly judged arbitrary detentions during wartime. Lincoln’s Civil War detentions and Roosevelt’s Japanese internment camps of the 1940s are embarrassing chapters in US national history. The fact that former presidents improperly suspended Habeas Corpus is all the more reason to exercise caution now. Additionally, the suspension of Habeas Corpus by the UK in 1971 arguably strengthened the cause of the IRA, and made it easier for the organisation to recruit members. Western governments should be careful not to repeat the mistakes of the past

Restrictions on Habeas Corpus undermine the war against terror and put national security further at risk. Giving terrorist suspects the protection of Habeas Corpus legitimises the war against terror by ensuring that US actions against suspected terrorists have a legal basis, and are not in contravention of the rule of law. The moment that the US and its Allies show the rule of law the disrespect that typifies the regimes which the West seeks to overthrow, the fight for ‘hearts and minds’ will be lost. This effect can easily be seen in the results of the suspension of Habeas Corpus in the UK in order to arrest suspected IRA activists in 1971 – rather than suppressing the IRA as intended it increased support for the terrorist organisation.[1]

[1] Wilkinson, Paul, Terrorism versus Democracy: The Liberal State Response, 2nd ed., Routledge, 2006, p.82, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uq6oCZF7iHcC&dq

Global terrorism calls for aggressive responses. We cannot allow our respective nations to be besieged by terrorists while we stand aside and do nothing. Our enemies are well aware of the legal framework in which the US authorities and their Allies operate, and will exploit it wherever possible. Constitutional freedoms are extremely important, but the security and continued existence of our nations must come first. The US and its Allies must make a stand and demonstrate that terrorism will not be tolerated.

If the US disregards Habeas Corpus protections, it sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of the world to follow. If other countries follow suit, the citizens and soldiers of the US and its Allies abroad could also be indefinitely detained and denied legal recourse if captured by foreign forces. This is especially relevant when considering journalists covering foreign conflicts, such as those currently occurring in the Middle East.[1]

[1] Staff reports, ‘USA TODAY writer, 3 other journalists captured in Libya’, USA Today, 8 April 2011, http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-04-07-libya-journalists_N.htm

The necessity of the measures, and the size of the terrorist threat which faces the US, outweighs the possible problems posed in the opposition argument. 

By suspending Habeas Corpus, the US is playing into the hands of terrorists and creating more would-be terrorists for the future. Enemies of the West aim to demonstrate that the US is an oppressive state in order to make its model less attractive to others. In particular, they wish to show that America is at war with Muslims in order to radicalise young Muslims both at home and overseas. The US should take heed of the precedent in Northern Ireland, where widespread internment without trial radicalised many Catholic youths in the 1970s and drove them into the arms of the IRA.

The hatred that terrorists feel for the US and its Allies does not depend on details of their respective legal systems. Their hate stems from our success in building a tolerant, democratic society at odds with their narrow vision of harsh conformity. Their propaganda seeks to radicalise young Muslims across the world not by arcane appeals to Habeas Corpus, but by twisted portrayals of Allied military actions against civilians in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia. If the prisoners currently held without trial in Guantanamo Bay were released, they could untold damage to the US and its Allies. The risk of this occurring clearly outweighs the ethical issues concerning the suspension of Habeas Corpus protections.