Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Habeas Corpus. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
A 5 page research paper that examines the April 2007 denial of the Supreme Court to hear the habeas corpus case of the Guantanamo Bay detainees. The writer discusses the ruling, relating it to the previous ruling 3 years ago by the Supreme Court, history of habeas corpus, and reaction to the ruling. Then, the writer discusses her own ideas and feelings on this topic. Bibliography lists 3 sources.
Page Count:
5 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_khhabeas.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
denied the right to habeas corpus, which is protected in the U.S. Constitution (Savage, 2007). The right to go before a judge who determines if incarceration of a particular individual
is lawful is not only guaranteed in the Constitution, but is also a "fundamental principle of Anglo-American law" (Savage, 2007, p. A.12). According to the Constitution, the privilege of habeas
corpus "shall not be suspended" except during "invasions or insurrections" (Savage, 2007, p. A.12). However, the extent of habeas corpus, that is, who, precisely, can lay claim to it remains
in doubt. Specifically, the Bush administration argues that prisoners of foreign extraction who are not being held within U.S. borders are beyond the reach of habeas corpus, and can therefore
be held indefinitely (Savage, 2007). While the Supreme Court Justices ruled 6 to 3 not to take up this issue in the current term, the Court is actually much
more divided than this court implies, as Justices John Paul Stevens and Anthony M. Kennedy have indicated that they voted with the majority only because the detainees have, thus far,
not availed themselves of all "available remedies" (Savage, 2007). This term refers to a step taken by Congress in late 2005 that says that the detainees at Guantanamo are entitled
to a hearing by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal. At such hearings, evidence is presented that the detainee should be considered an "enemy combatant," but the accused does not have
the "right to a lawyer...cannot challenge, or even see, all the evidence against" them (Savage, 2007, p. A.12). Thus far, these hearings have been virtually unanimous in upholding the Pentagons
decision to hold the accused. Congress has also said that the detainees can ask for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to review these rulings; however,
...