Terrorist attacks against the United States didn’t begin on September 11, 2001. In 1993, the World Trade Center became the target of terrorism; a truck bomb was the weapon of choice. Minimal damages were caused to the building with the exception of displacing businesses for a period of six months. Global War on Terrorism has been an ongoing effort in order to avoid future terrorist acts against the United States of America and the rest of the world. Throughout the last few years, many countries have extended their support in Afghanistan and Iraq to end terrorism and many individuals have been detained due to their participation in terrorist activities. These detainees are considered “enemy combatants”.
A valid debate exists over the rights of prisoners of war, detained personnel or enemy combatants. The same question seems to be continuously being asked, do these individuals have civil rights? During the War on Terrorism, the right of Habeas Corpus has been greatly debated. Do such individuals that participate in heinous acts against our government deserve to have rights or do their actions automatically causes them to lose their rights. According to certain laws, Habeas Corpus was not extended to detainees and therefore it was revoked. As an American Citizen and an American Soldier, I feel that detainees who perform any terrorist against American citizens or an American soil should forfeit their rights to Habeas Corpus. These ‘Third Country Nationals “ should not be allowed to have the same rights as Americans, specially, if it can potentially have an adverse effect on the efforts against the War on Terrorism.
In the article “Primer: Guantanamo detainees' rights” by Anne Hawke, the author defines "Habeas corpus" as a Latin phrase meaning "you have the body." It's an ancient concept. In old English law, it was used to refer to a judge's order (or "writ") to bring a prisoner before a court to determine whether his imprisonment was unlawful. According to the article, for a Guantanamo detainee, Habeas Corpus refers to the right to get direct access to federal court to challenge his imprisonment. It is a process that challenges the lawfulness of how and why a detainee is confined at Guantanamo. This article addresses how the federal government is undecided on whether to give the detainees the right to have lawyers and have access to the U.S. federal government judicial system.
In the article, “Guantanamo and Beyond: Dangers of Rigging the Rules” by Brian J. Foley, the author directly challenges the effectiveness of the Guantanamo policy for thwarting terrorist attacks by challenging the general proposition that loosening judicial standards for detaining and convicting suspected terrorists helps prevent terrorism. This academic article critiques the post-9/11 practice of indefinitely detaining "enemy combatants" to incapacitate and interrogate them to uncover plans for terrorist attacks. The author critiques that practice as ineffective and...