Guantanamo Bay

Introduction

Guantanamo Bay and the U.S. constitution by reading the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I have come to the conclusion that the indefinite detainment of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is not constitutional. This detainment of prisoners is a violation of Article one Section nine, and Amendment VI in the Bill of Rights.

Guantanamo Bay, “why closing it would be a mistake”?

Guantanamo Bay was set up to be a detention camp for possible terrorist suspects. The federal government chose Guantanamo Bay, which is located in Cuba, because it was supposedly out of the United State's legal jurisdiction zone. In June 2004, the federal government ruled that Guantanamo Bay was in the United State's jurisdiction, and that the writs of Habeaus Corpus would be placed in effect for all prisoners. The Writs of Habeas Corpus gives prisoners the chance to detest their unlawful imprisonment, in hopes that they can be released. It does not examine whether the prisoner is guilty, but more so, whether they are being held illegally. The federal court immediately argued that Habeas Corpus grants placed on the detainees were not relevant because the federal courts lacked jurisdiction to hear them. But in June 2004, the government rejected this movement and still allowed the federal courts to hear the lawsuits of the detainees.2 The government then argued that the detainees' cases be dismissed because the Constitution and certain treaties did not apply in Guantanamo.2 Finally in September of 2005, the court ruled that the Military Commissions act of 2006 “barred federal courts from hearing the Habeas Corpus petitions by those detained as enemy combatants”.2 I believe that this decision was unconstitutional in two ways.

The first goes in hand with Article one Section nine of the Constitution. This article states, “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”. 3 It makes no sense as to why Habeas Corpus was suspended because there was not a case of rebellion or invasion when the federal court decided to suspend habeas corpus. “The writ of Habeas Corpus is crucial to ensure that the government's power to detain is exercised wisely, lawfully and consistently with American values. The government claims the power to imprison individuals without charge indefinitely, potentially forever. It is essential that there be a meaningful process to ensure that the United States does not mistakenly deprive innocent people of their liberty. Habeas Corpus provides that process”.4 Although the Military Commissions Act allows detainees to go under trial in front of a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, they are not able to state their case and use their own evidence. If Habeas Corpus were put in to action, then the detainees would be given a fair trial that would equally represent both sides.4 By ruling that the Writ of Habeas Corpus would not be effective in Guantanamo Bay, this gave the detainees unequal representation, and lowered their chances of ever be tried or ...