The Right of Habeas Corpus in the Context of the War on Terror

The Right of Habeas Corpus in the Context of the War on Terror

Introduction

In deciding to bomb and occupy Afghanistan as a repercussion of September 11, 2001, the United States launched the first campaign of the war against terrorism; a war that President George W. Bush announced would be long, reaching well beyond his presidency. After the attack on the towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the American President, George W. Bush, described these actions as acts of war and declared that any State that support or harbor terrorists would be considered hostile, starting, that way, the fight against terrorism.

One of the countries that fit this description was Afghanistan, which housed and protected the rebel group known as Al Qaeda, led by Osama Bin Laden, Saudi billionaire accused of the attacks in the United States. Bush demanded that the Taliban government of Afghanistan, headed by Mullah Mohammed Omar, to hand over members of Al Qaeda and give him full access to hidden terrorist camps on its territory. As there was no response to their demands, the United States bombing Kabul, capital of Afghanistan on 7 October, 2001, and other cities like Kandahar and Jalalabad. The operation had the support of the international community.

This strategy of union against an uncertain enemy allowed Washington to forge alliances with regimes with little respect for human rights - Pakistan, Algeria, and China - or condoning repressive policies, such as those conducted by Russia against the Chechen people. The balance of the war in Afghanistan - not to mention the human cost - raised a disorder. Despite the presidential election on 9 October 2004, Hamid Karzai's authority remains limited, while his own protection depends on foreign bodyguards. Human rights, especially women's, continue to be violated. The Taliban continue their armed actions, and the numbers of Al-Qaeda remain unaccounted for, scattered throughout the world or sheltered in the tribal areas of Afghanistan (Clarke, 2004).

On the other hand, America's warfare against Afghanistan was damned by public opinion in the Islamic world. Worldwide, this war against terrorism has been the initial point for an unmatched offense in opposition to civil liberties. While prisoners held by the U.S. at Guantanamo or elsewhere have no rights, citizens of Western countries and immigrants are targets of draconian measures denounced by human rights organizations (Clarke, 2004).

Discussion

The procedure by which a judge or court ordered the custody of a detained or imprisoned person to be physically present, to decide the legitimacy of the confinement is as old as the common law. It was developed precisely when - at the height of the political crisis that shook the reign of Charles II (1660-1685) - parliamentarians had to erect guards against arbitrary arrests. Therefore, the status given to habeas corpus marks a historic turning point: despite the injustices and hypocrisies of a socio-political system so long dominated by the powers granted by birth or money, England has become a country of civil ...