Habeas Corpus and The Vague War on Terror

"The War on Terror" is a conveniently vague title. Most people believe to have an understanding for what it means, but it has never been officially defined. Despite its elusiveness, it has been used as a justification for two wars and the erosion of our civil liberties, most notably that of habeas corpus, the right of a prisoner to challenge his detainment in court.

The Writ of Habeas Corpus is not technically a "natural" right, but rather it is a procedural safeguard which is absolutely essential for protecting all of our actual liberties. Without it, there is no way to ensure that the government isn't wrongfully imprisoning someone, or imprisoning someone for entirely the wrong reasons, e.g., protesting against the government. What's to stop the police from arresting people and making them disappear for criticizing the administration if they're unable to challenge the grounds upon which they've been detained?

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 eliminates the Writ of Habeas Corpus for “enemy combatants”. Many people might not be disturbed by this since it only applies to terrorists. But the fact is, under the (constitutional) law, no one is a terrorist or any other kind of criminal unless he has stood trial and been found guilty of such. The president now has the authority to indefinitely detain anyone he SUSPECTS is a terrorist.

The War on Terror has been very unfortunate for our freedoms, but even more danger lies ahead. When most people think of a terrorist, they think of a bearded fellow from the middle-east with a hard-to-pronounce name wearing a turban. There is not, however, a clear definition of what a terrorist is. The great danger is that the government can justify further eroding our liberties by invoking this archetype, then after they have grabbed their extra authority, they can conveniently broaden the definition. As an example, I have heard about a case in which a group of animal rights activists were charged under recent terror legislation for bombing a meat-packing facility with no people inside. Is that what you think when you think of a terrorist?

The problem is knowing where to draw the line. Left unchecked, proceeding presidents might continue to extend the definition of terrorism to include more and more crimes. I've even heard people suggest that inner-city gangs should be considered terrorist groups because of the harm they inflict on their communities. It is unwise to leave such important distinctions to be made by fleeting presidencies or whimsical legislative bodies. This is why the Writ of Habeas Corpus is enshrined in our constitution. Constitutions can only be so self-maintaining. It's up the people to make sure the government does the legal and moral thing, that is to respect its founding document.