901459-new.html

<h1>Civil Liberties</h1><blockquote>
	Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
</blockquote><p>
	<cite>—Benjamin Franklin (1775)</cite></p><h3>Central Ideas</h3><ol class="ol1">
	
<li>Civil liberties protect individuals from abuses of power by the government.</li>	
<li>The Bill of Rights defines the core of civil liberties protections, and Supreme Court interpretations define the limits of these protections.</li>	
<li>Civil liberties protections have sometimes been extended to apply to state governments as well.</li>	
<li>The interpretation of individual liberties has changed over time.</li></ol><h3>With Liberty and Justice for All?</h3><p>
	The United States has a perpetual lease on a piece of territory in Cuba called Guantanamo Bay. The government has maintained a naval base at this site since 1898. In 2002, the administration of President George W. Bush began using it as a detainment facility for suspected terrorists captured in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Because Guantanamo Bay is considered outside U.S. legal jurisdiction, the Bush administration argued that it was within its rights to treat detainees at Guantanamo as though they were not covered by civil liberty protections offered by the U.S. Constitution or the Geneva Conventions. The administration also sought to prosecute the detainees in military tribunals, which do not guarantee defendants the same rights as those in civilian courts.</p><p class="figure">
	<img src="http://assets.soomo.org/em_text/3_civil_liberties/ch3_camp_xray.jpg" alt="Photograph of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, 2002." aria-describedby="&quot;ch3_splash_desc/" data-mce-src="http://assets.soomo.org/em_text/3_civil_liberties/ch3_camp_xray.jpg" width="548"> Detainees in orange jumpsuits sit in a holding area under the watchful eyes of military police at Camp X-Ray at Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, during in-processing to the temporary detention facility on Jan. 11, 2002. The detainees will be given a basic physical exam by a doctor, to include a chest x-ray and blood samples drawn to assess their health. <em class="credits">Department of Defense photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Shane T. McCoy, U.S. Navy. Copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Camp_x-ray_detainees.jpg.</em></p><p>
	In 2004, the U.S. military serving at Guantanamo fell under heavy criticism over allegations that
	<span class="s1"> detainees were being subjected to various forms of torture</span>, including sleep deprivation, beatings, waterboarding, force-feeding, religious defamation, sexual harassment, and filthy surroundings. The case of <em>Hamdan v. Rumsfeld </em>challenged these tactics in 2006, and the Supreme Court took a bold position in ruling against the Bush administration. It concluded that the president did not have the authority to establish military tribunal commissions outside the laws of war—including the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and standards established through the Geneva Conventions—or without Congressional approval. Significantly, the Court determined that the detainees were entitled to receive certain protections, including a trial by a "regularly constituted court."<a name="fn1" href="#footnote%201" data-mce-href="#footnote%201">[1]</a><br data-mce-bogus="1"></p><p>
	In response, President Bush petitioned Congress to pass the Military Commissions Act of 2006, a piece of legislation that authorized the use of military tribunals. The Department of Defense also issued a memo announcing that all detainees in U.S. custody are entitled to receive humane treatment under the requirements of the Geneva Conventions. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court interceded once again. In the case of 
	<em>Al Odah v. United States</em> (2007), it struck down the Military Commissions Act of 2006 as unconstitutional because the act denied <a class="showtip indexable" title="A protection against illegal imprisonment requiring that those detained have access to a court of law concerning the reasons for their detention.">habeas corpus</a> rights to detainees in a territory under complete U.S. jurisdiction and control.<a name="fn2" href="#footnote%202" data-mce-href="#footnote%202">[2]</a><br data-mce-bogus="1"></p><p>
	Upon entering office, President Barack Obama issued an executive order suspending the military courts, and he announced that the facility would be closed within a year.
	<a name="fn3" href="#footnote%203" data-mce-href="#footnote%203">[3]</a> However, a military judge rejected the order and moved forward on the trial of Abd Al-Rahim Al-Nashiri, a Saudi accused of involvement in the attack on the USS Cole in 2000. In May of 2009, the Senate also challenged Obama's direction. They removed an appropriation of $50 million for closing Guantanamo from a supplemental appropriations bill for 2009. Without this funding, President Obama faced three options: vetoing the appropriations bill, closing the facility at Guantanamo without funding, or recanting his promise to shut down the facility altogether.<a name="fn4" href="#footnote%204" data-mce-href="#footnote%204">[4]</a><br data-mce-bogus="1"></p><p>
	The Obama administration chose the second option and sought alternative facilities within the United States to incarcerate the detainees, presumably to await civilian trials. In response, Congress added provisions to the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act that placed specific restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners to the U.S. mainland. The Senate also passed a measure in November of 2012 that further prevents any transfer of the detainees to the United States. The Guantanamo prison remains in operation today, housing over a hundred suspected terrorists with no clear path forward on holding their trials in either civilian or military courts.</p><p>
	This example raises a number of important questions concerning civil liberties. What are civil liberties? Who is covered by them? How are our civil liberties protected, and are there any limits to these protections? How have civil liberties protections changed over time? In this chapter, we address all of these questions in order to shed light on the meaning and significance of civil liberties in the American political system.</p><p class="footnotes"></p><p>
	<a name="footnote 1" href="#fn1" data-mce-href="#fn1">[1]</a> <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZS.html" target="new" data-mce-href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZS.html"><em>Hamdan v. Rumsfeld</em></a>, 415 F. 3d 33 (2006).</p><p>
	<a name="footnote 2" href="#fn2" data-mce-href="#fn2">[2]</a> <a href="http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_343" target="new" data-mce-href="http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_343"><em>al Odah v. United States</em></a>, 542 U.S. 466 (2004).</p><p>
	<a name="footnote 3" href="#fn3" data-mce-href="#fn3">[3]</a> <a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=85670" target="new" data-mce-href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=85670">"Executive Order 13492: Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and Closure of Detention Facilities,"</a> issued by President Barack Obama on January 22, 2009.</p><p>
	<a name="footnote 4" href="#fn4" data-mce-href="#fn4">[4]</a> David Welna, <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104304003" target="new" data-mce-href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104304003">"Senate Democrats Pull Funds to Close Guantanamo,"</a> National Public Radio, May 19, 2009.</p>

901459-old.html

<h1>Civil Liberties</h1><blockquote>Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.</blockquote><p><cite>—Benjamin Franklin (1775)</cite></p><h3>Central Ideas</h3><ol class="ol1"><li>Civil liberties protect individuals from abuses of power by the government.</li><li>The Bill of Rights defines the core of civil liberties protections, and Supreme Court interpretations define the limits of these protections.</li><li>Civil liberties protections have sometimes been extended to apply to state governments as well.</li><li>The interpretation of individual liberties has changed over time.</li></ol><h3>With Liberty and Justice for All?</h3><p>The United States has a perpetual lease on a piece of territory in Cuba called Guantanamo Bay. The government has maintained a naval base at this site since 1898. In 2002, the administration of President George W. Bush began using it as a detainment facility for suspected terrorists captured in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Because Guantanamo Bay is considered outside U.S. legal jurisdiction, the Bush administration argued that it was within its rights to treat detainees at Guantanamo as though they were not covered by civil liberty protections offered by the U.S. Constitution or the Geneva Conventions. The administration also sought to prosecute the detainees in military tribunals, which do not guarantee defendants the same rights as those in civilian courts.</p><div class="figure"><img src="http://assets.soomo.org/em_text/3_civil_liberties/ch3_camp_xray.jpg" alt="Photograph of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, 2002." aria-describedby="&quot;ch3_splash_desc/" data-mce-src="http://assets.soomo.org/em_text/3_civil_liberties/ch3_camp_xray.jpg" width="548"> Detainees in orange jumpsuits sit in a holding area under the watchful eyes of military police at Camp X-Ray at Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, during in-processing to the temporary detention facility on Jan. 11, 2002. The detainees will be given a basic physical exam by a doctor, to include a chest x-ray and blood samples drawn to assess their health. <em class="credits">Department of Defense photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Shane T. McCoy, U.S. Navy. Copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Camp_x-ray_detainees.jpg.</em></div><p>In 2004, the U.S. military serving at Guantanamo fell under heavy criticism over allegations that<span class="s1"> detainees were being subjected to various forms of torture</span>, including sleep deprivation, beatings, waterboarding, force-feeding, religious defamation, sexual harassment, and filthy surroundings. The case of <em>Hamdan v. Rumsfeld </em>challenged these tactics in 2006, and the Supreme Court took a bold position in ruling against the Bush administration. It concluded that the president did not have the authority to establish military tribunal commissions outside the laws of war—including the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and standards established through the Geneva Conventions—or without Congressional approval. Significantly, the Court determined that the detainees were entitled to receive certain protections, including a trial by a "regularly constituted court."<a name="fn1" href="#footnote%201" data-mce-href="#footnote%201">[1]</a><br data-mce-bogus="1"></p><p>In response, President Bush petitioned Congress to pass the Military Commissions Act of 2006, a piece of legislation that authorized the use of military tribunals. The Department of Defense also issued a memo announcing that all detainees in U.S. custody are entitled to receive humane treatment under the requirements of the Geneva Conventions. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court interceded once again. In the case of <em>Al Odah v. United States</em> (2007), it struck down the Military Commissions Act of 2006 as unconstitutional because the act denied <a class="showtip indexable" title="A protection against illegal imprisonment requiring that those detained have access to a court of law concerning the reasons for their detention.">habeas corpus</a> rights to detainees in a territory under complete U.S. jurisdiction and control.<a name="fn2" href="#footnote%202" data-mce-href="#footnote%202">[2]</a><br data-mce-bogus="1"></p><p>Upon entering office, President Barack Obama issued an executive order suspending the military courts, and he announced that the facility would be closed within a year.<a name="fn3" href="#footnote%203" data-mce-href="#footnote%203">[3]</a> However, a military judge rejected the order and moved forward on the trial of Abd Al-Rahim Al-Nashiri, a Saudi accused of involvement in the attack on the USS Cole in 2000. In May of 2009, the Senate also challenged Obama's direction. They removed an appropriation of $50 million for closing Guantanamo from a supplemental appropriations bill for 2009. Without this funding, President Obama faced three options: vetoing the appropriations bill, closing the facility at Guantanamo without funding, or recanting his promise to shut down the facility altogether.<a name="fn4" href="#footnote%204" data-mce-href="#footnote%204">[4]</a><br data-mce-bogus="1"></p><p>The Obama administration chose the second option and sought alternative facilities within the United States to incarcerate the detainees, presumably to await civilian trials. In response, Congress added provisions to the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act that placed specific restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners to the U.S. mainland. The Senate also passed a measure in November of 2012 that further prevents any transfer of the detainees to the United States. The Guantanamo prison remains in operation today, housing over a hundred suspected terrorists with no clear path forward on holding their trials in either civilian or military courts.</p><p>This example raises a number of important questions concerning civil liberties. What are civil liberties? Who is covered by them? How are our civil liberties protected, and are there any limits to these protections? How have civil liberties protections changed over time? In this chapter, we address all of these questions in order to shed light on the meaning and significance of civil liberties in the American political system.</p><div class="footnotes"><p><a name="footnote 1" href="#fn1" data-mce-href="#fn1">[1]</a> <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZS.html" target="new" data-mce-href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZS.html"><em>Hamdan v. Rumsfeld</em></a>, 415 F. 3d 33 (2006).</p><p><a name="footnote 2" href="#fn2" data-mce-href="#fn2">[2]</a> <a href="http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_343" target="new" data-mce-href="http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_343"><em>al Odah v. United States</em></a>, 542 U.S. 466 (2004).</p><p><a name="footnote 3" href="#fn3" data-mce-href="#fn3">[3]</a> <a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=85670" target="new" data-mce-href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=85670">"Executive Order 13492: Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and Closure of Detention Facilities,"</a> issued by President Barack Obama on January 22, 2009.</p><p><a name="footnote 4" href="#fn4" data-mce-href="#fn4">[4]</a> David Welna, <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104304003" target="new" data-mce-href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104304003">"Senate Democrats Pull Funds to Close Guantanamo,"</a> <em>National Public Radio</em>, May 19, 2009.</p></div>