the assault on habeas corpus

Posted on Monday 25 September 2006


Known as the "Great Writ", the writ of habeasMagna Carta [via FDL] corpus ad subjiciendum is a legal proceeding in which an individual held in custody can challenge the propriety of that custody under the law. The prisoner, or some other person on his behalf (for example, where the prisoner is being held incommunicado), may petition the court or an individual judge for a writ of habeas corpus.

The right of habeas corpus—or rather, the right to petition for the writ—has long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subject. Dicey wrote that the Habeas Corpus Acts "declare no principle and define no rights, but they are for practical purposes worth a hundred constitutional articles guaranteeing individual liberty".

Blackstone cites the first recorded usage of habeas corpus in 1305, in the reign of King Edward I. However, other writs were issued with the same effect as early as the reign of Henry II in the 12th century. Winston Churchill, in his chapter on the English Common Law in The Birth of Britain, explains the process thus:

"Only the King had a right to summon a jury. Henry accordingly did not grant it to private courts…But all this was only a first step. Henry also had to provide means whereby the litigant, eager for royal justice, could remove his case out of the court of his lord into the court of the King. The device which Henry used was the royal writ…and any man who could by some fiction fit his own case to the wording of one of the royal writs might claim the King’s justice."

The procedure for the issuing of writs of habeas corpus was first codified by the Habeas Corpus Act 1679, following judicial rulings which had restricted the effectiveness of the writ. A previous act had been passed in 1640 to overturn a ruling that the command of the King was a sufficient answer to a petition of habeas corpus.

Then, as now, the writ of habeas corpus was issued by a superior court in the name of the Monarch, and commanded the addressee (a lower court, sheriff, or private subject) to produce the prisoner before the Royal courts of law. Petitions for habeas corpus could be made by the prisoner himself or by a third party on his behalf, and as a result of the Habeas Corpus Acts could be made regardless of whether the court was in session, by presenting the petition to a judge.

This procedure, part of English common law, was considered important enough to be specifically mentioned in the United States Constitution, which says, "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." (Article One, section nine).

ha·be·as corpus (hbs)
n.

  1. One of a variety of writs that may be issued to bring a party before a court or judge, having as its function the release of the party from unlawful restraint.
  2. The right of a citizen to obtain such a writ.

This is what President Bush is trying to eliminate in dealing with the people he calls detainees. He wants unlimited detention and trials in which the detainees do not have access to the evidence. That’s what’s going on in your Congress today, the dissolution of our Constitution.

There are three possible reasons he wants this:

  • bad people should have no rights
  • habeas corpus is too much trouble
  • he’d like to stir up civil libertarians
  • all of the above

You pick…

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.