Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:41, 29 September 2006

Poorly written

This has got to be the wordiest, most wonderful explanation of habeas corpus possible. I've practiced in federal and state criminal courts for a few years and no one uses any of those old "alternative" habeas writs any more. In modern U.S. practice, the writ is used to challenge to the legality of government confining someone, whether it be in jail, a mental institution, or a hole in the ground. The other, older versions of the writ aren't used in U.S. practice. The discussion should be divided into modern U.S., British, Canadian, Australian, Irish, and anyone else who uses the writ, and then a brief mention of the history. Most people coming here will want to know what it is now, today, in a particular place, and then maybe will be interested in learning about how it used to function. I'll take a crack at improving it over the next several days, but I don't know if I have the time.

I agree. I read through this entire article and not once felt I was being given a clear explanation of what Habeas Corpus actually is (that a layman could understand). How about a simple example (real or not) of a case where Habeas Corpus is used? 80.195.186.192 12:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel Words

In parts of the country, or for certain classes of resident, habeas corpus has been suspended more recently, however. The British Government's 2004-2005 passage of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill through the House of Commons brought a great deal of criticism, much of which suggesting that the bill threatened Habeas corpus.

As well as having weasel words construction, this looks like POV to me. There's no supporting evidence and no attempt to cite any references. I've removed it.

Pearcej 06:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These are not weasel words. Nor are them a derogation from POV. Instead they provide useful and interesting clarification presented in neutral language. I'll put them back. Flugkupeskce777777777.

The statement "In parts of the country, or for certain classes of resident" is so vague as to be meaningless. What does this mean? What is a "class of resident"? Which parts of the country? It sounds very much like POV to me. Please clarify.

The statement ending "...brought a great deal of criticism, much of which suggesting that the bill threatened Habeas corpus" are Weasel Words. Again, who exactly criticised it? A better example (if it were true), would be: "...brought a great deal of criticism from Liberty, who suggested that the bill would threaten Habeas corpus."

Pearcej 06:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Erosion of Habeas Corpus in the US, 1980-2002?)

---

Such an erosion of the writ might be best addressed as part of the overall effort to streamline the federal appeals process.

The section on suspension of the writ in Chile? did/does Chile recognize such a writ - I believe they are a civil law jurisdiction.

Civil law jurisdictions do not recognize habeas corpus per se — if only because modern civil law jurisdictions normally do not use latin expressions in legal contexts. They tend to have, however, judicial procedures that are close or equivalent. David.Monniaux 12:50, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is false. The writ of Habeas corpus was not suspended after 9-11.

Following the crime against humanity which occurred on 11 September 2001 in New York, habeas corpus was suspended in the USA. More than a thousand people were arrested due primarily on their national origin (see racism), and were kept imprisoned in secret without any form of legal process. Under pressure from lawyers, many of these "disappeared" people were released, but others were deported without being charged or brought before a court of law. Some of the "disappeared" people who were released alleged that they had been tortured.

Further on the "suspension" of the writ after 9/11 . . . The Constitution's guarantees (such as no suspension of the writ) only apply to citizens. Whether a foreign national enjoys a particular constitutional right depends on the right and the situation. As a general matter, an illegal alien wouldn't have a constitutional right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A court might hear their petition, but not because the Constitution demands it.

As I count it, there were two individuals who are United States citizens who the Bush Administration attempted to label as "enemy combatants," arguing, in effect, that if the Prez calls someone an "enemy combatant" that means he can suspend their constitutional rights. The administration eventually decided to hand the two off to federal prosecutors and put them through normal criminal proceedings rather than test the President's "enemy combatant" powers. For those two, but only those two, I think it's fair to say that the writ was suspended for a while.

The US has done lots of nasty things - deposing Salvador Allende among them - but why should this be in an article about habeas corpus?
bob

I recently reverted vandalism to this section of the talkpage performed on March 6, 2006. I hope I didn't miss anything. 71.121.1.6 12:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension of Habeas Corpus following the 11 September incident

Following the US supported coup d'etat against the democratically elected president of Chile, Salvador Allende, on 11 September 1973, habeas corpus was effectively suspended in Chile. Tens of thousands of people suspected to be opposed to the government were "disappeared". Many eventually were found to have been killed.

Maybe the part about the US supporting the coup is out of place, but the rest is relevant to the article. It is interesting that during South American dictatorships such as the one Chile had, Habeas Corpus often gets effectively suspended. Why have info only on England and the US? 200.89.130.29 03:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

The definition of habeas corpus seems very unclear to me. Sorry, but I simply cannot understand it. Could someone rewrite the first chapter, and/or perhaps give an example? Does this mean the person must appear at a court, be told the reason for imprisonment? "It's purpose is to release someone who has been arrested unlawfully" - how is that? How does bringing the prisoner to the court release him if he was arrested unlawfully? How does it guarantee against torture? -- Lussmu 19:20, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I clarified the introduction by showing the writ in two different context. The original context makes the explanation confusing. The writ (in a common law context) is used to remove a person from a civil court into a common law court. This is vastly different from the explanation in the introduction. The personal liberty is protected in choice of law actions by the writ (actually by the return on the writ issued by the court of common pleas).(RAF)

The civil law writ allows for release if the person is being held without due process. This allows your attorney to get you out of jail until you have had a trial. Unfortunately it only works when you either have a lawyer or the ability to file this claim. A person without this ouside contact (an attorney or someone who can file the writ) isn't protected very well except by the disire of government to do what is right (this is a very small desire and almost can't be found).

I have to agree that after reading most of this article, I still have no idea what habeas corpus is. This is the most vague article I've read yet on Wikipedia. A good introductory paragraph would go a long way towards clarifying this article. AceTracer 19:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also have no idea about what habeas corpus does. Perhaps an example, historical by preference but made up if necessary, would clarify things? For example, suppose the police come around, grab me and throw me in prison. What does habeas corpus do for me? (And do I have it, in Canada?) --Andrew 19:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On Latin

It's been a long time since I've studied Latin, but shouldn't it be habeas corporem, being accusative? Wouldn't "habeas corpus" imply that tu = corpus? (In other words, you are the body?)

Be it grammatically correct or not, Habeas Corpus is a proper name so it doesn't really matter. --PullUpYourSocks 20:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realize that. I was just wondering about whether or not it IS gramatically correct. I've noticed that we as a culture seem to "abuse" Latin a little bit when assimilating it into our own language. I've done some thinking (and tried to refresh my rusty Latin) and come to the conclusion that "habeas corpus" IS gramatically correct if "corpus" is neuter. Most neuters tend to end in "-um" but not all of them do, for example "opus" is neuter. I saw "corpus" and assumed it to be second declension non-neuter, as most (but not all) words ending in -us tend to be. But, I think now, it is neuter, so "habeas corpus" is correct. (Which is kind of odd to me. What if you wanted to say the body had something? corpus habet (the body has) vs ille corpus habet (that one has a body) It's impossible to distinguish. I guess that's one reason why Romance langauges no longer have declensions.

English is indeed known to warp the original meaning of borrowed Latin phrases, but it almost never abuses the form. You are correct that "corpus" is neuter, but the fact that you thought it should be "habeas corporem" rather than "habeas corpum" shows that you didn't think it was second-declension; you just thought it was a non-neuter third-declension. An understandable mistake (I remember how embarrassed I felt the time I translated a Latin passage and used "operem" instead of "opus"), but almost all Latin words that decline "us, oris" or "us, eris" are neuter: facinus, foedus, holus, nemus, onus, opus, pectus, tempus, viscus, vulnus... Anyway, glad you figured it out for yourself, sorry to waste your time with this largely redundant confirmation of your findings. :) -Silence 07:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

habeas corpus = Lat. "you have the body" Sounds accusative to me. dananator.

Corpus is not a 2nd declension Latin masculine noun, but rather a (commmon) 3rd declension Latin neuter noun, so its nominitive and accusative are the same form (as is always true for neuter Latin nouns). (Note: mistaking corpus for 2nd declension masculine is much like mistaking virus for 2nd declension masculine; an unendingly recurring mistake amongst those who do not know Latin, and eventually a very boring mistake.)

Definition

I am not a lwayer. But I can tell you that it is impossible to understand what this habeas corpus is, what is its function. Who issues it, what happens when it is issued. I found this definition, clearer than the one given here, but it is copyrighted:

writ directed by a judge to some person who is detaining another, commanding him to bring the body of the person in his custody at a specified time to a specified place for a specified purpose. The writ's sole function is to release an individual from unlawful imprisonment; through this use it has come to be regarded as the great writ of liberty. The writ tests only whether a prisoner has been accorded due process, not whether he is guilty. The most common present-day usage of the writ is to appeal state criminal convictions to the federal courts when the petitioner believes his constitutional rights were violated by state procedure.

 That definition may be clearer, but I believe that it's not
 entirely accurate.  The writ is regularly used to test whether a
 prisoner is innocent, and the writ is not an "appeal" but an
 independent civil action. I have recently added some language
 to the article in an attempt to make it clearer. 
 --Ekimbrough 16:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Habeas corpus and the Royal writ

Please see Writs#History (also xref'd in the article) where an explanation similar to that of Churchill is given. Regarding Fair use I have used ellipses to save space, but the brief sections quoted, (each about 1 1/2 sentences long) could be broken down into three even smaller fragments if that is desirable.

Australian Anti-Terror laws

I think the Australian section needs a re-write. I have deleted some of the lines which seem to imply that Australia is becoming a fascist "Police State". Also since these laws are being debated right now, it is probably best to wait if/when they are actually passed before commenting on how they may or may not abolish habeas corpus. --Peter 22:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what does it mean?

The supplied definition may be a useful refresher to someone versed in law, but to a layman like me, it is as clear as mud. When someone says (as indeed the definition says) "the right of habeas corpus" (for example, "the right of habeas corpus was suspended"), what is that right, condensed to its simplest form? Is it the right to a trial when accused of some wrongdoing? Is it the right to challenge one's imprisonment, in court? From reading your definition, I cannot tell! This must confound the purpose of the definition. I believe your definition should start with a nutshell summary -- a short sentence, comprehensible to a layman -- before going on to elaborate on the complexities.

habeas corpus is the right to be charged or let go; it means the government cannot just break into your house and grab you and throw you in prison and leave you there, to keep you quiet. It means US President Lincoln could not throw newspaper editors he didn't like into jail with no charges, just to quiet the opposition -- yet he did so anyway, ignoring the supposed habeas corpus right. Similarly, the US nowadays sneaking around and grabbing Americans of Middle Eastern descent and putting them into secret gulags, with no charges and no judicial system, is a violation of the supposed habeas corpus right -- which is why it is mentioned in the article.

British Anti-Terror laws

I'm no fan of the abolition of habeas corpus (as it's about to be done in Aus), but the section on British anti-terrorist legislation is definitely not NPOV. It should be rephrased, but if I do it, the section would be a one-liner.

Patriot Act comments in article

The article claims that the Patriot Act gives the President of the United States authority to claim ANYONE is an enemy combatant and lock them up without reason. Where is that in the Patriot Act? There is no mention of it on the Patriot Act article here. Searching the full text of the Patriot Act law on the Congress' website for "enemy combatant" comes up with nothing remotely similar to such a claim. This appears to me to be some left-over Zephram Stark nonsense. He felt a strong urge to claim that the Patriot Act destroyed Habeas Corpus (which he initially claimed was the right to be told you are being investigated). After having the true definition explained to him, he apparently ran over here to alter this article to fit with his anti-Patriot Act/anti-Bush POV. --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Habeas corpus and the War on Terrorism

The section titled "Suspension during the War on Terrorism" contains a couple of inaccuracies. First, the Supreme Court has determined that Guantanamo detainees do have the right to file a habeas petition (in Rasul v. Bush). Further, the Presidential Military Order ("Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism") was issued on November 13, 2001. September 18, 2001 is the date Congress passed the "Authorization for Use of Military Force", which made no mention of habeas corpus or "Enemy Combatants". The section should be revised or omitted. TomOinDC 08:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Quirin, Eisentrager, and Padilla should be mentioned. Amcfreely 04:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move here..... The government *hasn't* been able to suspect the use of habeas corpus, which is how these cases are getting to the courts.

In times of war governments may seek to limit the use of habeas corpus; currently, the United States and its War on Terrorism is suspending habeas corpus while detaining certain non-citizens suspected of connections to terrorists or terrorism and holding them as enemy combatants.

Roadrunner 22:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

Only two references (apart from "further reading on historical background") from an article of this length? Andjam 12:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Habeas Corpus and non-citizens

The claim is made that "the Constitution clearly gives Congress that right [to suspend habeas corpus for non-citizens.]" A reference to the line that gives them that right would be useful, since the only mention of habeas corpus in the Constitution says exactly the opposite.: Article 1, Section 9: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.

If people could ~~~~ [[%7e%7e%7e%7e]] wikipedia :sign sign ,...

< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Habeas_corpus&diff=62082135&oldid=56030482 >;

< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Habeas_corpus&diff=77428192&oldid=74515588 >.

hopiakuta 16:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it consensus that the senate voted against "habeas" last night, @ least partially??

hopiakuta 16:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 136: / Line 136: @@
 The claim is made that "the Constitution clearly gives Congress that right [to suspend habeas corpus for non-citizens.]"  A reference to the line that gives them that right would be useful, since the only mention of habeas corpus in the Constitution says exactly the opposite.: Article 1, Section 9: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.
+= If people could <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> [[%7e%7e%7e%7e]] [[ wikipedia :sign]] [[sign]] ,... =
+{{see | wikipedia :sign}}
+< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Habeas_corpus&diff=62082135&oldid=56030482 >;
+< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Habeas_corpus&diff=77428192&oldid=74515588 >.
+[[User:Hopiakuta|hopiakuta]] 16:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
+= Is it [[consensus]] that the [[senate]] voted against "habeas" last night, @ least partially?? =
+[[User:Hopiakuta|hopiakuta]] 16:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)