Habeas Corpus and the War on Terror The law of Habeas Corpus was established to allow the guilty to present their case in court and to be tried fairly. In today's war on terror, the number of such enemy combatants who were detained indefinitely without any trial has increased. The courts are split up on following the law by the letter or to practically alter it according to the situation's needs. I feel it's necessary to follow these laws in same context in which they were written, and the pragmatic approach leaves room for reckless changes. To deny an enemy combatant his or her day in court cannot be justified as taking the pragmatic approach in dealing with war criminals. This paper is an attempt to present the state of law today towards war criminals and the implications of denying the basic right of Habeas Corpus to suspected terrorists.
Ever since the dawn of civilization, disputes have routinely erupted between various members, families, factions, and groups within civilizations and between civilizations. In ancient times, disputes would be resolved by crude means, means not limited to the powerful person using brute force to show he was in the right. The stronger person would always have, say for example, the first right to food, to agricultural produce, cattle and to wealth etc. The weak wouldn’t dare pick an argument over the stronger person in fear for their life. But as civilizations grew and advanced over time, a code of ethics and laws began to form.