September/October LD Resolution

I affirm the resolution, “Resolved: The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants to citizens. ”A few important terms and definitions include the following: Terrorism, from The Arab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism: Any act or threat of violence, whatever its motives or purposes, that occurs in the advancement of an individual or collective criminal agenda and seeking to sow panic among people, causing fear by harming them, or placing their lives, liberty or security in danger. Accused, from Black’s Law Dictionary: To have been charged with a crime. The value for this debate is justice. Justice is commonly defined as what is fair. It implies equal and impartial treatment for all. “In any situation, be it in a courtroom, at the workplace or in line at the grocery store, we want to be treated fairly. We shouldn’t be judged more harshly because of our skin colour, we shouldn’t be paid any less because of our gender, and we shouldn’t have to wait longer for a drink because of our political ideology. ”Furthermore, Justice is universal and objective, not subjective. While it is considered just in many Middle-Eastern countries to abuse women and children, I think we can agree that it is in fact wrong and unjust to do so. Nothing is right just because one person or country says it is. We would never abuse a woman from the Middle East simply because she is not subject to the “idea” of justice that theUnited States grants to its citizens. We reject such abusive treatment of women wherever it is practiced precisely because it is unjust. In theUnited States, we institute certain laws because we believe those laws to be just. Consider: the right to freedom of speech and of the press, the right to due process. These rights are legally protected by theUnited States. How we believe someone should be treated is not limited to citizens of our country, but is extended universally because every human being deserves justice. That is why theUnited States, throughout the course of its history has condemned injustices committed elsewhere in the world. Sometimes, however, we do not have the legal ability to extend these rights. However, when these people do come into the jurisdiction of theUnited States, we ought to, in order to uphold justice, grant them these rights that we have been given because these rights are essential to justice. Consequently, the value criterion for this debate is universality. Universality is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy as the quality being in existence everywhere or having applicability to all. Universality is directly linked to this debate because justice is blind, meaning that regardless of citizenship, a crime is treated in the same just manner, and the concept of universality, wherein justice is distributed without bias or predisposition, supports this idea. Universality is an important concept to understand in this debate because it describes justice. Justice is universal. Contention 1: Reacting to injustices justly. We treat a child who steals a candy bar differently than we treat an adult who steals a car; the two do not share the same culpability or importance of crime. Each is given justice as is proportionate to his crime. To preserve the integrity of our justice system, all people must be recognized as having been created equal, and therefore deserving of justice. To preserve rights for our citizens alone and not all human beings questions the integrity of our justice system because we’re denying that the rights we have given our citizens we have given them because those laws are just. We want justice for everyone. Justice is a universal concept, not one to be given to only some and not others. While my opponent might argue that the way we treat terrorists is just, the point is this:U. S. citizens accused of terrorism are given due process protections, an example being Faisal Shahzad who attempted to execute theTimes Squarecar bombing. So why do we treat accused non-citizens who commit the same types of crimes differently. Culpability is based upon the crime and the intent, not where you live. Contention 2: Due process protections uphold natural rights and are therefore just. While it is true that those who commit crimes forfeit certain rights by doing so, there are some rights that a legal system cannot take away without “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” that the accused is guilty. These are called natural rights. Natural rights are the rights that all people enter society with, because those rights existed before the concept of government or the legal system was ever instated. Even the Constitution of theUnited Statesacknowledges a person’s natural rights. An excerpt from the fourteenth amendment of constitution reads, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. ” In saying this, due process of law is shown to uphold natural rights of life, liberty, and property only by means of a fair and definitive procedure. All persons, whether foreign or citizens, should be provided due process protections, as they uphold natural rights, which all people necessarily are bound to. The law is meant to provide justice, but it can only do so if it is curbed by systems like that of checks and balances that keep absolute control from the government. We must subject people to the law, but we also must protect them from it. Any system that requires or takes complete control of any person or peoples cannot be just. In 2006, a federal law was passed taking away the right of habeas corpus from those from foreign countries accused of terrorism. Therefore those accused foreigners are allowed to be held indefinitely without having even been proven guilty. In the times of traditional warfare this might have been permissible, but in a time when war against terrorism can be war against an individual either from your country or a foreign one, and the battlefield is anywhere from our own cities and towns to distances across oceans, we must be deliberate and sure about how we deal with those we deem “accused. ”=======Citations/Sources=======Boyden, Jonathan, Mr. "The Universality of Justice. " Yahoo! Voices. N. p. , 23 Dec. 2010. Web. <. http://voices.yahoo.com...;. Shaffer, Butler, Mr. "What Is Justice? " Lewrockwell. com. N. p. , 13 July 2009. Web<. http://www.lewrockwell.com...;.Edmonds, Molly, Ms. "What Is Justice? " How Stuff Works. N. p. , n. d. Web. <. http://people.howstuffworks.com...;.