Extending Terrorists Due Process Rights

yeah... you can call me ignorant if you want, but I'm not arguing with that wall of text. I find that quotations serve only to weaken one's argument, being rigid and dogmatic in their interpretation and infuriatingly repetitious in their application. I wasn't aware that I was supposed to address your points, only that I was expected to present a counterargument that ran contrary to your position, but if you want me to address your points individually, I will simply use the summaries you provided. Contention One: Human rights affirm that all people are universally guaranteed due process. Human Rights aren't guaranteed to anyone. They are achieved through the careful application of force as a response to a perceived violation. What people are willing to fight and die for are different from what people are willing to risk censure and ridicule for. Further, what constitutes a human right in an individuals mind is by no means universal, as is assumed by your argument. Sub-point A: According to Emily Zechenter, a prominent Human Rights Lawyer, human rights encompass basic moral principles held by all cultures on Earth and seek to ensure minimum standards of treatment for all. Again, a culture or nations perception of what constitutes a human right is by no means universal, in and in this particular case, I am inclined to believe more people are in favor of denying a suspected terrorist due process than are in favor of it. Sub-point B: The Constitution itself embodies these human rights principles, contends Prof. Afsheen J. Radsan. The constitution has specific provisions for acts of treason and sedition as well. It maintains that human rights that are otherwise guaranteed must be suspended on occasion in order to see to it that justice is done. For example, Habeus Corpus can often be suspended to mental patients who are deemed a danger to themselves or others, as well as trial by jury in regards to their detainment and incarceration. Sub-point C: These human rights concerns also translate into moral rules. Again, subject to interpretation. Appealing to a higher authority in the form of missives to an educated populace or ruling elite might be considered by some an authoritarian measure, some might even perceive your direct appeal towards our ruling body as a subversion of the democratic process. Had you asked people during the height of the Iraq War their view on this topic, undoubtedly their would be an overwhelming negative response to such a suggestion. Confusing the human rights violations in regards to torture of suspected prisoners is not the same as granting terrorist suspects entitlements along the lines of due process. Though not explicitly implied, I believe you are confusing the issue. Contention Two: Depriving non-citizens of due process"their human right"is not only immoral, but perilous as well. Admittedly, there was a general lack of oversight and an occasional victim washed ashore amid an atmosphere of hysteria and violence. This was due to a lack of general concern for prisoners welfare and wellbeing, as well as a an anti-islamic sentiment that swelled throughout the ranks of senior intelligence officials and military personnel. But guaranteeing someone the right to due process does not mean that no further injustice will befall such victims. Discrimination within the courts has been ongoing for years, and the misunderstanding of complex foriegn issues has been a cause for contention in domestic courts for centuries in america. A jury hellbent on vengeance for a terrorist attack is far more likely to be biased and partial towards a guilty verdict than a tribunal held by the U.N. or collection of concerned parties and nations. Sub-point A: Detention centers where due process rights are derogated only serve to incite terrorism. Dentention centers do far more than process terrorist suspects. They also harbor refugees and illegal immigrants seeking asylum, they deal with suspects awaiting extradition, they detain suspects who are thought to be in violation of sanctions and embargoes, (including weapon embargoes) they provide our nation with a means of preventing war and maintaining diplomatic relations with hundreds of member nations in U.N. Sub-point B: Violating the rights of accused terrorists doesn"t deter terrorism. I hate to point out the obvious, but it does if those accused are guilty of terrorism, and those rights are of a nature that would otherwise prevent them from being prosecuted due to a technicality in the legality of the law as it is written. Suspending Habeus Corpus may be necessary when searching for a translator, trying to determine a suspects nation of origin, or shipping a suspect overseas, as 24 hours may not be long enough to establish the suspects identity or determine what, if anything, he is being charged with. To say that any right is absolute is to deny the existence of extenuating circumstances which have been set in precedent hundreds, if not thousands, of times in the past. Sub-point C: Violating the rights of those accused undermines U.S. credibility, increases anti-Americanism, and alienates our allies. I agree that we should have some format which guarantees certain rights to the accused, but suggest that due process is by any means universal and can be applied universally is ludicrous. What we need is more oversight, better appeals processes and sterner laws regarding the torture and unlawful detention of prisoners, not dragging international affairs into kangaroo courts and letting broad spectrum public appeal determine complex foreign policy decisions. In my opinion, our reputation amongst the peoples of foreign nations is far less important than seeing to it that justice is being done. We may be unpopular, but maintaining the peace in the face of this new threat is far more important than allowing ourselves to be swayed by public opinion in regards to this matter.