Extending Terrorists Due Process Rights

I"ll be first addressing the overview/framework arguments, then defending my own case, reiterating some of my earlier attacks, and crystallizing/impacting the round. The quotes I offered were not merely "dogma," but rather contained logic that supported my various claims. However, at this point the debate is revolving around more substantive clashes, which I will now discuss. DEFENSE OF THE PRO: Contention One: Human rights are naturally universal"it is understood and implied within the term itself. Human rights are "human," and extend to us all. However, even if we reject that notion, I mentioned the ICCPR, a legally-binding treaty which forces the U.S. to comply to human rights norms as set out by the UN. One of those norms is due process for all persons, even terrorists. Thus, from a human rights, as well as from a legal perspective, terrorists should have the same rights. Sub-point A: What my sources is saying is not that most people favor granting terrorists rights, but rather that most cultures extend due process to all persons. Sub-point B: There are some important flaws in your arguments, here especially. The Supreme Court has held (in the Boumediene case I referred to earlier) that terrorists, like any citizens, have the right to appeal a denial of Habeas Corpus; in essence, that they have the same rights. Secondly, nowhere in the Constitution is sedition mentioned"feel free to check. Thirdly, the Constitution does grant accused traitors due process rights. It states quote: "No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." Sub-point C: Human rights actually serve as checks against authoritarianism, by preventing the government from overstepping its legitimate authority. For example, the human right to vote prevents governments from rescinding that right. But in any case, the legally-binding ICCPR is hardly "up to interpretation." It"s firm as concrete. Contention Two: The UN probably wouldn"t try the terrorists, because it views their detention, and sometimes their arrests, as unlawful. The UN could potentially send them back to their home country, which could prove to be a security nightmare. Furthermore, being tried by a panel of nations wouldn"t give the terrorists a fair trial, as nations would vote based on their own political agenda. The U.S. could even pressure some of them to vote for conviction of terrorists by threatening to withdraw aid, etc. Besides, juries that have been properly vetted, whose members are not necessarily biased, are a better choice than countries that have obvious political interests at stake, interests that cannot be prescreen for because they are endemic to all nations. Finally, the U.S., which holds the terrorists, does not recognize the legitimacy of any international courts like that, meaning it would not give up the terrorists to the UN or The Hague or any other external judiciary. Sub-point A: I was speaking specifically of the detention of terrorists. Sub-point B: Violating rights is liable to incite terrorists, by enabling their leaders to demonize the West. My opponents counterargument also fails to acknowledge how hard it is to locate terrorists. Furthermore, they are "accused terrorists" and deserve a presumption of innocence. Sub-point C: The Con doesn"t actually address my analysis regarding growing anti-American sentiment due to our policy of denying suspects equal rights. This growing animosity only serves to hinder U.S. diplomacy, further undermining our ability to achieve our national security objective. The Con resumes the conversation about the "same rights" vs. "some rights," which is a great segue into the next segment of my rebuttal, where I will address this dichotomy. REVIEW OF THE CON I argued that my opponent made three mains arguments for only grant "some" rights, instead of the "same" rights. Those three points were that (1) Military Tribunals were fair and effective, that (2) granting terrorists equal rights would endanger U.S. security, and that (3) it would be unconstitutional to grant non-citizens the same due process rights Firstly, the Con seems to abandon his earlier argument regarding military tribunals in favor of this notion of a UN or international court. Thus, my points about the absence of judicial independence within the tribunal system as well as the fact that civilian courts are more than equipped to handle terrorist cases stand. Secondly, my Contention Two (which I defended earlier) provides clear national security benefits inherent to the pro side. The Constitutionality issue, though, is far more important. If, Constitutionally, the U.S. should grant non-citizens equal protects, then the military tribunal and the international court arguments are unimportant, because the U.S. must still grant equal rights to terrorists regardless of other factors. In light of my opponent"s poor Constitutional analysis in Round Two, particularly in regards to Treason, I think the evidence I offered is sound. Most vitally, the Bill of Rights extends equal due process protections to "all persons," not just "all citizens." This is underscored by Supreme Court case precedent that non-citizens, including terrorists, are "persons" and therefore owed the same due process as citizens. Thus, the Constitutionality argument goes pro. Ultimately, the Con closes by stating that doing justice is the most important concern. But, he advocated denying accused non-citizens Habeas Corpus, which would keep them in prison for extended/indefinite periods of time. In that case he wouldn"t even be granting them "some rights," which seems contradictory to his earlier assertions. Justice, in this case, relies on equality of protection, to ensure that the accused are not unfairly victimized. KEY ISSUES/REASONS TO VOTE PRO (1) That the three main reasons Con gave for extending "some" but not the "same" rights do not hold water. (2) The legally-binding ICCPR, to which we are a party, compels the U.S. to extend equal due process rights to non-citizens as a matter of human rights. It"s not subjective, and not a matter of higher principle. It"s the law. (3) That the Constitutionality argument goes Pro. This is the most important issue in the round, because if the U.S. is constitutionally required to grant non-citizens accused of terrorism the same rights, then it ought to do so, and the topic is affirmed. The Bill of Rights gives "all persons" the SAME rights, and this interpretation has been upheld by the Supreme Court. The Impact: any one of these issues is sufficient to vote for the pro, because accepting any one of these will have shown either that the Con has failed to meet its part of the burden of proof (to show that the "same rights" are not due) or that that Pro has proved its part of the burden. With that, I ask you for your vote. Thank you, and thanks to KBattleson for a great, and intense, debate!