View this PageEdit this PageUploads to this PageHistory of this PageHomeRecent ChangesSearchHelp Guide


Final Draft - Rohan


It's not done, about half way, but here it is (hopefully this works and you can read it):

Throughout the history of the United States, the Constitution has provided the basis for national law and public policy. With the recent terrorist attacks and subsequent War on Terror, grave threats to national security have emerged, and the need for expeditious incarcerations of potential threat suspects, especially foreign nationals, has been debated in the government. With the severe perils of today’s terrorism, the government should not have any interference if it does incarcerate without due process, especially since the individuals in question are not American citizens, and therefore, not protected by the Constitution.
The main issue in the debate upon hasty incarceration is who is covered under the Constitution. The document does not explicitly specify who is or is not covered under the guidelines of the Constitution, so neither argument is firm in that sense. However, patterns through history can be examined. In typical trials, foreign nationals have been granted the same rights as a citizen, so long as they entered the nation legally. The converse of this can be demonstrated well through immigration cases, where long periods of imprisonment or instant deportation are common. The question that has risen recently is where foreign nationals, often in cases of security threats, should be classified.
In Article I, Section 9, the Constitution states “the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” This should provide reasoning for the detention of foreign nationals suspected of being terrorism threats. In such instances, it is essentially an invasion, whether through legal processes such as the 9/11 hijackers, or illegally, and these suspects present severe threats to “public safety” and the overall well-being of the union. Therefore, foreign nationals suspected on terrorism charges should not be guaranteed the rights of ordinary American citizens.
This Constitutional conflict is amplified when one examines Amendments number V and VI, both of which protect the rights of the accused. Amendment V states that a suspect should not be “deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law”, while Amendment VI grants the rights of a “speedy and public trial”, and “assistance of counsel for his defense.” However, the Patriot Act of 2001 recognized that the nation is in a different era with different threats than those faced in the late 18th century. The act grants the government to detain persons who provide “reasonable grounds to believe” (Patriot Act) that they present a security threat. It also “provides tools to assist law enforcement in combating terrorism, while preserving the constitutional rights that make America worth protecting,” (Patriot Act) thus further explaining the recent adaptations to changes in civilization, in conflict with the Constitution.
Though the recent procedures are justified through examination of the Constitution, the threat to national security may be the largest reason to allow the government to incarcerate terrorism suspects without due process. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the ensuing wars have made the United States a prime target of global terrorism. Heightened security and awareness are necessary to avoid more devastating attacks, and part of that process includes the need for a pro-active approach.

To Be Cont'd...

I plan on:

~ please note that I added the Patriot Act as a source (referenced above) but didn't list it on the previous page


Critique #1 provided by Rohan
Critique #2 provided by Rohan
Critique #3 provided by Rohan

Evaluation by ATZ03:

Links to this Page