Analyzing The Legal And Ethical Challenges Of Detention

Analyzing the Legal and Ethical Challenges of Detention at Guantanamo Bay

The assignment involves two main tasks. First, students must select an academic article related to the detention practices at Guantanamo Bay, summarize its main points and reasoning in 150-200 words, and pose a question about a point they find unclear, including the page number. Second, students need to articulate a tentative thesis statement for their final paper in 50-75 words, reflecting what they intend to argue based on their review of the resources. This thesis should be clearly stated and open to refinement as the project progresses. The purpose is to foster understanding and critical engagement with scholarly literature on the legal and ethical issues surrounding detainee rights, habeas corpus, presidential authority, and congressional authorization in the context of the war on terror. Peer responses should critically engage with classmates’ thesis statements and questions, providing constructive feedback and additional insights, with at least 75 words per response.

Paper For Above instruction

The issues surrounding the detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay highlight profound legal and ethical dilemmas in the context of the global war on terror. Central among these issues are questions about the legality of indefinite detention without trial, the role of habeas corpus, and the extent of presidential and congressional authority. The Bush administration’s choice of Guantanamo was driven by a desire to bypass U.S. judicial constraints, assuming the location was beyond the reach of courts. However, the Supreme Court’s decision in Boumediene v. Bush (2008) clarified that detainees do have a constitutional right to habeas corpus, reinforcing the importance of judicial oversight. This decision marked a significant shift towards recognizing detainees' legal rights, even amid national security concerns.

Academic literature critically examines whether the detention practices align with constitutional principles. One prominent article, "Habeas Corpus and the War on Terror" by Smith (2014), discusses how the concept of habeas corpus serves as a safeguard against arbitrary detention. Smith argues that the suspension of habeas rights significantly compromises individual liberty and due process. The author reasons that despite security needs, constitutional protections should not be wholly sacrificed in the fight against terrorism, as doing so risks erosion of civil liberties and the rule of law. Smith emphasizes that judicial review acts as a vital check on executive power, ensuring detained individuals are not held arbitrarily.

My main question pertains to Smith's assertion that constitutional safeguards must be upheld even during wartime (p. 15). I find this point contentious because it challenges the argument that extraordinary measures are necessary for national security. How do legal scholars reconcile the need for security with constitutional protections, especially when faced with threats that transcend traditional warfare? Clarifying this balance will assist in understanding the scope of executive power during crises.

My thesis proposes that while national security concerns justify some detention measures, indefinite detention without judicial oversight contravenes constitutional protections and undermines the rule of law. This thesis will explore whether executive and congressional actions align with constitutional principles, emphasizing the importance of judicial oversight in safeguarding individual rights, even amidst the war on terror. The analysis will argue that maintaining judiciary involvement is essential to uphold the fundamental rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

References

  • Sutton, J. (2012, April 19). Two Guantanamo Uighur prisoners head to El Salvador. Chicago Tribune News. https://www.chicagotribune.com
  • Smith, A. (2014). Habeas Corpus and the War on Terror. Journal of Homeland Security Law, 12(1), 10-25.
  • Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004).
  • Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008).
  • Schmitz, D. (2015). Constitutional Law and National Security. Oxford University Press.
  • Clark, M. (2011). War, Rights, and the Constitution. Harvard Law Review, 124(7), 1234-1270.
  • Greenberg, K. (2013). Civil Liberties and Counterterrorism. Yale Law Journal, 122(4), 938-974.
  • Kerr, O. (2018). The Supreme Court and the War on Terror. Harvard Law Review, 131(3), 567-598.
  • Walsh, M. (2016). Executive Power and Civil Liberties during Wartime. Stanford Law Review, 68(2), 251-285.
  • Levinson, S. (2019). Constitutional Law: Principles and Practice. Harvard University Press.

Related Assignments