Terrorists should have due process protections

However, that is fixed and I can now post my case. Let the debate begin! Supreme court justice Potter Stewart once said, "Fairness is what justice really is. " It is because of this that I affirm the resolution stating Resolved: The US ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants it's citizens. Before going further, I would like to define the following terms: Ought, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is used to express moral obligation. Citizen, according to the Blacks' Law Dictionary, is defined as members of a political community who follow the rules of said community and in return receive privileges and rights. Therefore, this resolution states that the US has a moral obligation to give the same due process protections that it gives it's citizens. For the purpose of this debate, I will be using the value of Justice, which can be defined by Lawguide Dictionary as the system that works to give each their due. I will be supporting this with a value criterion of Egalitarianism, which is defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary as the doctrine believing in the equal rights of humanity in political, social, and economic respects. My value criterion supports my value because the doctrine of egalitarianism gives fairness and equality to the meaning of Justice in it's principles and emphasis of equality under all considerations, including the law. I will be supporting this with two contentions. Contention 1:The US Constitution supports this resolution completely. Constitutional due process is explained in the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. My opponent may observe how this document supports egalitarianism and does not have bias against those who aren't citizens in the following sub-points. Sub-point A: The 5th amendment details the legal rights of the people. It states, " No person shall be held to answer for a capitol or otherwise infamous crime unless at the indictment of a Grand Jury. " While it goes on to state the peoples rights to not be put in double jeopardy or be forced to testify against themself, I would like to point out that this amendment does not specify citizens having these rights. It says specifically that no PERSON shall have to be put in those situations. Therefore, because terrorists are still people, the Constitution gives them the same rights as those who are normal citizens. Sub-point B: The 6th amendment details the rights of the accused. It states, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial of an impartial jury. " My opponent may observe that once again the amendment states that these are the rights of the ACCUSED, not of only citizens. Sub-point C: The 14th amendment specifies who gets due process. It states, ". .. Nor shall any state deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. " Yet again: PERSON, not citizen. With the Constitution and these amendments, a non-biased system is created in which the accused has an equal chance of being ruled as innocent or guilty. With a non-biased and equal system in place, egalitarianism is reached, and justice is served by giving each their equal due. Contention 2:Men have natural rights no matter what crimes they have commited. John Locke, whose ideals influenced our constitution, states that man are endowed by their creator the inalienable natural rights of life, liberty, and property. There is no distinction here between citizens or not. When a man commits an act of terrorism, is he no longer a man? No! He is still a man, and therefore still has his natural rights. Those natural rights are, as you have seen in the previous contention, still to be protected by the constitution. Therefore, if he is a person, then despite what my opponent may say, it does not matter whether he is a citizen or not, and because he is still a man, no grievous crime will result in his rights being taken away. The rights that a non-citizen has are equal, as defined by egalitarianism, to those that a citizen has. And with equality and, as Potter Stewart said, fairness, comes Justice. In conclusion, those who commit terrorism deserve the same rights and judicial protections as normal citizens. To go over my contentions again, the Constitution completely supports this resolution. Second, men have natural rights no matter what crimes they commit. Thus, I urge an affirmative vote for todays debate.