The United States ought to extend to noncitizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due pr

Resolved: The United States ought to extend to non citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants to citizens. Definitions: Non-citizens: owing allegiance to another country Citizens: A person owning loyalty to a country or a state and is entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state of nation. Terrorism: a reprehensible activity that breaks the rules of legitimate political violence by targeting innocent civilians. Constitutional Due Process: a course of formal (legal) proceedings carried out regularly and in accordance with established rules and principles Ought:Used to express moral obligation Value: Human dignity Criterion: The value doesn't apply to those who have committed past heinous felonies. All humans are created equal (human rights) (unalienable rights) Contention 1: Every human is innocent before proven guilty Non-citizens accused of terrorism should be given due process with the same rights as any U.S. citizen accused of terrorism and must be proven guilty by a court of law. According to our constitution, everyone is innocent before proven guilty. Due process guarantees any person accused of a crime to a court trial when accused of a crime. This right is protected and stated in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which includes the following clause (Cornell Law Journal): No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger"; Clearly every person within the United States is entitled to a trial, and the only exception to that law is when the country is in a state of war. Terrorist acts or threats are isolated and typically involve small groups of people or individuals. Therefore an individual accused of an individual crime should be provided this right. Moreover, the sixth amendment to the Constitution states that In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Terrorist who are accused of acts against the United States need to be held accountable for those acts in the place that these crimes were committed, and witnesses should be able to testify for or against them according to the laws of due process. In our constitution, it says that everyone is innocent before proven guilty. This means that a person cannot be arrested without proof. In any court trial, the burden of proof is the job of the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the judge or jury that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted. (The Guardian) For instance, prisoners as young as 13 and as old as 70 have been held for many years at Guantanamo Bay without the rights to due process to prove their innocence. Omar Khadr is the son of an alleged al-Qaida leader in Canada. Who"s father killed a US soldier by throwing a grenade at him during a battle at a suspected al-Qaida base in Afghanistan. Khadr spent nearly nine years in Cuba as a result, even though he did not commit any crime himself. When authorities addressed the reasons that Omar remained in US custody, a military officer concluded that Khadr was of high intelligence value to the United States, providing valuable information on his father's associates and al-Qaida. Keeping terrorist suspects in detention who may be innocent of crimes to serve intelligence interests is inhumane and unethical. Contention 2: All human beings are created equal According to the Government Archives, the fifth amendment in the Bill of Rights states, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." This means that every person has a right to fair trial. If a person does not have their fair trial then this goes against the Constitution itself. Written in this document is, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." "archives.org. Humans are entitled to their rights, despite their religion, race, and gender. The Dred Scott vs. Sanford was a case that went to the Supreme Court that was debated on equality between humans. Sanford argued that because Dred Scott was black, he did not get the same rights that white people do. This is one instance where the U.S. goes back on its word of all men are created equal. The Supreme Court announced that John Sanford had one the case and Dred Scott had to become a slave again. This is morally, as well as lawfully wrong. In the moral code of society, U.S. has to allow the non-citizens the same constitutional due process as it does to citizens. Humans are separated from animals because they can self-judge. Since all humans that are accused of terrorism, live, breath, think, act and can self-judge, they are considered as actual humans. in the constitution it states that all men are created equal, therefore all humans, (citizens and non-citizens) have the same rights. The U.S. is not only built off of freedom but as morality as well. This idea will be further mentioned in the next contention. In conclusion, since all humans are created equal, non-citizens have the same rights for a constitutional due process as citizens. Contention 3: Fairness In order to establish whether due process rights should apply to non citizens, we must apply the principles of the 14th amendment, which grant "equal protection under the law." The "equal protection" clause extends First Amendment protection to anyone and everyone covered by the 5th and 14th Amendments. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has stated that: "The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State." Moreover, the Supreme Court has upheld the rights provided by the 14th Amendment in several court cases involving non citizens. In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a case involving the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment applied to all persons without regard to the differences of race, color, or national origin. This same principle was applied to other non-citizens in Wong Wing v. U.S. and Plyler v. Doe, which struck down a Texas law prohibiting enrollment of illegal aliens in public school. In its decision, the Court held that the undocumented status of children does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents. Sources: Government Archives Merriam Webster Dictionary The American Heritage Dictionary Black Law Cornell Law Journal archives.org The Constitution Bill of Rights