Should we restore Habeaus Corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees?

Question

Keep in mind that restoring Habeaus Corpus rights is not being "soft" on terror, but merely allowing the detained to challenge his detention.

I am well aware of what the Constitiution says. I know it can be suspended, but only it times of Rebellion or Invasion. Neither seems to be the case. Section 9, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. "

In writing the Constitution for the United States of America, James Madison said that states in order to enhance their power, often resorted to “the old trick of turning every contingency into a resource for accumulating force in the government.” The idea is to foster an emergency, and then step in to “save the people” by drastically increasing state power. We give the government the right to suspend the Hapeaus Corpus, but we expect it to return be restored to prevent an ongoing state of emergency to erode our rights. What could be gained by allowing the government to lock up anyone it wants without charges for as long as it can?

Answer 1

Yes! Not even in the Civil War was suspension of habeas corpus ruled constitutional. If there's no evidence to hold these guys then there's no reason to keep them.

Besides, I think SCOTUS will rule in favor of restoration anyway:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/06/supreme-court-to-hear-guantanamo-bay.php

Answer 2

First of all, Writ of Habeas Corpus is not a "right". It is a privilege extended by government. Under the Constitution, the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus may be denied under certain circumstances. It's sad that so many people do not know more about the Constitution. The politicians thrive on that ignorance.

What could be gained by allowing the courts a role in the War on Terror?

Answer 3

well yeah, because if some Americans are suspected of terrorism and held in our jails say in my country, and we torture them without charge, you just know some Americans are going to like cry and stuff.

you never know some Americans could be detained at an airport here , suspected of terrorism, and say my government says lets treat them the way the yanks do, perhaps those that favor torture may turn out to not really favor it after all.

Answer 4

You'd better worry more about restoring habaeus corpus right here in the USA--because if you think the Buh administration hasn't ignored it here, you're incredibly naive.

Answer 5

we are monsters as a results of fact we violated the individuals's maximum effortless rights assured for countless hundred years: the spectacular to project your incarceration. (As dictated via the Magna Carta shape.) This is going a techniques previous an undemanding 'decapitation' incident. it is related to u.s. upholding its rules and abiding via worldwide treaties and different such rules ruled via the civilized international. till of course...you do no longer think of we are...*civilized* adequate? enable me positioned it to you in words you are able to understand: The Nazis murdered 6 million JEWS for the time of the 2d international conflict. those in charge for his or her heinous crimes have been further till now a worldwide tribunal and given their rights to project their case decrease than a sequence and independent regulation. quickly forward to 2001 and those so-referred to as "terrorists" kill an insignificant 3000 people in one day--and yet we DENY them their rights to a straightforward and independent listening to, their rights to project their accusers, and a top to work out convene with a legal expert of their finding out on? The question is: Why? Why are those people any distinctive from the Nazis whom killed 20+ cases extra people in 6 years than those people did in one day? Why have been the Nazi perpetrators given their day in court and those terror suspects are not? What does the Bush administration would desire to worry lots from a collection of fellows being held without trial or charge?

Answer 6

The detainee never had those rights. It is impossible to restore them. For them to get that right, it would be the first time they ever had it.

Answer 7

That is precisely what I call being soft on terror.

Answer 8

They never had them and they do not apply. Why the question?

Answer 9

What do you mean "restore" them? They never had them and still don't.

Answer 10

Most are not citizens of this country. So HELL NO!