Extending Terrorists Due Process Rights

The Topic: The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants to citizens. Burdens: The Pro must show that, from a moral/philosophical standpoint, withhold some due process rights from non-citizens accused of terrorism is best. The Con should do the opposite. Burden of proof is joint. Proviso: No new evidence should be introduced after round three. No new arguments should be introduced after round two. Also, morality shall be understood by both debaters to mean "justness and rightness, as understood by most human cultures." My Argument: I affirm the topic. Definitions from Encarta: United States- the People and Government of the U.S. Ought- Indicates a moral obligation Accused Terrorists-Charged with committing, planning, or abetting acts of violence, especially bombing, assassination, etc. carried out for political reasons Due Process Protections-The judicial protections granted by and being derived from the Constitution, including the right to a jury, the right to a speedy trial, etc. Contention One: Human rights affirm that all people are universally guaranteed due process. 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. She states, human rights "provide important protections for individuals who would otherwise be entirely at the mercy of the state or the group in power. These protections include such basic rights as the right to bodily integrity; the right to be free from torture and...abuse; the right to be free from arbitrary courts, imprisonment, police coercion, etc." The U.S. in particular, has signed and ratified the ICCPR, a legally-binding treaty wherein any person is assured a right to due process, "as administered by the legal system of that state." Sub-point B: The Constitution itself embodies these human rights principles, contends Prof. Afsheen J. Radsan. After analyzing the Supreme Court Cases of Boumediene and Matthews, he stated that "the Due Process Clause applies"to government action worldwide. This is consistent with the"text of the Fifth Amendment, which bars"without any express territorial limitation"the government from depriving any person of rights"without due process of law..." U.S Attorney Loretta Lynch concurs, noting, "in the area of civil liberties"the Constitution does not make distinctions based upon citizenship status, but guarantees certain basic rights to all "persons." This reflects our view that the legal system"must treat everyone equally. Certain basic rights, e.g., due process, must be equally applied across the board for the integrity of the legal system as well as for the benefit of the individual"Even when national security is at stake, we must, provide for due process of law..." Sub-point C: These human rights concerns also translate into moral rules. Prof. Thomas Pogge of Yale, observed that "Persons have a moral duty to respect human rights"Human rights express weighty moral concerns, which normally override other normative considerations" It would be entirely irresponsible to deprive ourselves of any moral basis for the assessment and reform of our global order. And the only such basis that could be both plausible and capable of wide international acceptance today is a conception of human rights." Prof. Jack Donnelly concurs, stating, "To violate someone's right is not merely to fail to do what is right but also to commit an"important moral and personal offense against the right-holder by failing to give him his due..." Contention Two: Depriving non-citizens of due process"their human right"is not only immoral, but perilous as well. Sub-point A: Detention centers where due process rights are derogated only serve to incite terrorism. U.S. Airforce Terrorism Analyst Alexander Matthews, agrees, stating that, "Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq"at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy is close to the number of lives lost on 9/11." Alberto Mora, former U.S. Navy Counsel-General, agrees, noting that the abuses at detention centers are large contributors to Al Qaeda"s recruitment. Sub-point B: Violating the rights of accused terrorists doesn"t deter terrorism. According to Dr. Uri Fisher, "the deck is stacked against deterrence playing a significant role in U.S. counterterrorism policy because terrorists are highly motivated and therefore they are willing to risk anything " their lives in the case of suicide-bombers " to accomplish a goal"terrorists are also difficult to locate. Terrorist networks operate transnationally and therefore make reprisals difficult"it remains undecided how deterrence can work against an enemy that understands that the ultimate policy goal of the U.S. is not to coexist with groups like al-Qaeda, but to eradicate them." Sub-point C: Violating the rights of those accused undermines U.S. credibility, increases anti-Americanism, and alienates our allies. Mora notes that "allied nations hesitated to participate in combat operations if there was the possibility that"individuals captured during the operation could be abused by the U.S"Allied nations have refused on occasion to train with us in joint detainee capture and handling operations because of concerns about U.S. detainee policies. And senior NATO officers in Afghanistan"have left the room when issues of detainee treatment have been raised by U.S. officials out of fear that they may become complicit in detainee abuse"International cooperation"diminished as foreign officials became concerned that assisting the U.S. in detainee matters could constitute aiding and abetting criminal conduct in their own countries." Prof. David Cole claims that prisoner abuses have caused us to "forfeit the legitimacy of the struggle against terrorism, and make it less likely that we will obtain the cooperation we need from those countries, contributing to anti-American sentiment, which has never been higher than it is today. That cannot be good for our long-term interests, and it plays right into the hands of the terrorists' recruitment propaganda." Human rights are ethical rules that our global community has put in place. To ignore them would not only be illegal: it would be immoral. The ramifications of disregarding those rights extend beyond morality, and jeopardize our very safety. The U.S., therefore, has a moral duty to ensure all individuals receive due process rights. Thus, I affirm.