Jump to content

Talk:Habeas corpus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Habeas corpus and the Royal writ

[edit]

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.

British Anti-Terror laws

[edit]

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.

Cognate

[edit]

Wouldn't "habeas" be a cognate with "haber", Spanish for "to have (verb)". Also, "corpus" sounds like "corpse".

Manifest Destiny problem

[edit]

It seems to me that the article's statement that habeas corpus is / has been interpreted as being associated with Manifest Destiny should be cited, and if there is evidence for this claim, moved to a different section of the article; i.e., from Derivation to History.

More pressing is the subjective conjecture that: "In this sense habeas corpus justified American involvement in the Vietman War and the merciful killing of African-Americans along the coast of Ghana." There is no mention of Ghana in the Manifest Destiny article (nor Eisenhower's), nor any indication that this is an unbiased and factual description. Is the word "merciful" racist or ironic; I can't tell.

This article - A question of freedom: - seems to describe what the statement is alluding to, but shows a more believable portrayal of Ghana's independence being a political rallying point in the US, vis-a-vis the claim that African-Americans were killed along the coast of Ghana, which is obviously contentious, if not patently false.

I don't know what to do about this, other than deletion, but it seriously detracts from the article's quality.

Dubious claim - United States

[edit]

The claim made in the United States section (shown below) makes claims I cannot verify and in modern times appears to be unrealistic.

When the original thirteen American colonies declared independence, and became a republic based on popular sovereignty, any person, in the name of the people, acquired authority to initiate such writs.

The main article points out, at length, the difference between the implementations of writs in the US and England. Such differences however only allow for a person to petition a court for a writ of habeas corpus if they are a federal prisoner and meet the criteria set out here. It would seem more appropriate the text reflect the realities presented in the main article which provides a much stricter definition for who may petition for a writ. Generically Named (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]