Subscribe!The recent history of the United States appears to be a repetition of past mistakes. As an example, I have written a brief snapshot of the history of habeas corpus from which you can make your own judgement. I was inspired to write this by an item I heard on the NPR program “This American Life”.
Before beginning the history, it should be stated that the right to habeas corpus must considered a fundamental human right. It provides a means for an imprisoned individual to question the justification for his/her detainment and thus to seek a remedy to that imprisonment (whether it be freedom or a trial). No person, no entity, no country, should be allowed to indefinitely imprison anyone without justification verified by evidence. The right of habeas corpus should be extended to everyone, even those we might consider enemies or who are not citizens of our country. The first step toward tyranny is the sacrificing of rights for a bit of security.
Many histories1,2 of habeas corpus mention the first codification of the right as the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679. However, seldom mentioned in the histories are the events immediately preceding this act (including the Act of 1671). In the years 1642-1651, three civil wars took place in England3. During these wars, King Charles I was tried for treason, convicted, and executed. To those loyal to the monarchy, this was murder, and a group that could murder the king was capable of any vicious act. This group (whose composition included some religious fantatics who believed the removal of the king from power would bring the kingdom of heaven to Earth) was eventually defeated and Charles II named king by those who hoped to bring some stability to England. However, attempts and plots to remove the king continued (see Venner's Rising)4. Such events certainly allowed those in power to justify the limitation or elimination of the civil liberties that existed at the time. And such actions by the government eventually led to the impeachment of one Lord Clarendon (born Edward Hyde). The list of accusations against him included the following5:
| "That he hath advised and procured divers of his Majesty's subjects to be imprisoned, against law, in remote islands, garrisons, and other places; thereby, to prevent them from the benefit of the law, and to introduce, precedents for imprisoning any other of his Majesty's subjects in like manner." |
The guilt or innonence of Lord Clarendon is not at issue here. What is, however, is the fact that during the early years of the restoration, a fear existed in the government that at large remained individuals capable of plotting and carrying out unimaginably vicious acts. This fear was so strong that those who fell under governmental suspicion were imprisoned on remote islands so that they could be denied proper access to the law. Such was the outrage at this that the Habeas Corpus Act of 16796 was passed by Parliament, an act that specifically forbade the very things of which Lord Clarendon was accused.
The current administration of the United States is telling us that the prisoners of the War on Terror are different than prisoners from traditional wars. These individuals are vicious, hate our society and our freedom, and thus we can imprison them indefinitely in order to find out what they know. However, we should counter that we are a country of laws. While many of the people imprisoned at Guantanamo and other detention centers may in fact do anything in their power to destroy our country, the fact remains that they are people, humans that deserve the right to question their imprisonment by our country. The government is run by people, and people make mistakes. The detainment of innocent individuals does occur, and it access to legal recourse that allows for such mistakes to be corrected. We must remember that we are living in the 21st century. We are a democracy, not a 17th century monarchy. If we are going to go into the business of nation building, it is our obligation to provide an example to the rest of the world of a nation of laws and respect for human rights, even the rights of our enemies.
References: 1. Wikipedia.org: Habeas Corpus 2. BBC News: A brief history of habeas corpus 3. Wikipedia.org: English Civil War 4. Ex Libris: English Dissenter: Fifth Monarchists or Fifth Monarcy Men 5. British History Online: The History of Parliament, Debates in 1667, 1st-15th November, footnotes 6. Habeas Corpus Act
