Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror Essay

Words: 2165
Pages: 9

Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror

Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror Do you remember where you were on September 11, 2001? I was working as a Personal Care Provider in a Senior Home at Newport, NJ. Do you remember the feeling you felt when you saw the planes crashing on the Twin Towers in New York? I remember feeling powerless. I wanted to do something to help out the people trapped in those towers. It was a horrible feeling not to be able to help them. Right after that, President Bush declared the War on Terror and many of our troop members were sent overseas to defend our country and to try to catch those involved on this act of terror. Many people were detained and sent to Guantanamo
…show more content…
Only one of them is required to be a trained attorney. Although legal training is important, due to the fact that this determination is based on the ability to weigh both sides of the case, to evaluate the evidence, and the various ways it can cut. “The attorneys are trained to examine bias witnesses, hidden motives, perceptive abilities, memory, and logical consistency” (Dueholm, 2008). People that don’t have legal training are less likely to question evidence. Military offices may fear that contradicting the determination already made may cause them to be accused of disobedience under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). Unlike our own system, the detainee is prohibited from getting assistance from a counsel, instead the suspect gets assistance from a “personal representative,” who is not a judge advocate, and who is going to assist the suspect in reviewing all relevant unclassified information while the government’s evidence is represented by a judge advocate, which can be a trained attorney. Secret evidence can be used, however, the suspect is prohibited from seeing the evidence and the personal representative is prohibited from discussing the secret evidence with the suspect. Now, coerced testimony can be used if is available only if CSRT thinks is reliable because there are not guarantees of right to present witnesses. So let’s say that CSRT does allow witnesses for the suspect, the suspect can call a witness