Extending Terrorists Due Process Rights

Firstly, let me give a generic overview of what my opponent has said so far by pointing out that the Con offers no evidence, nor does the Con address, specifically, any of my points (I urge him to do so in this second round). Instead, my opponent's position rests on a series of suppositions and rhetorical questions, not in depth analysis. Now that my overview's complete, I'll move on to a line-by-line analysis of his position. To begin, the Con discusses the concept of "sedition," which we can clarify as "any action, especially in speech or writing, promoting rebellion." (Random House) He claims that foreign nationals found to be participating in sedition are, historically, not granted the same due process rights as citizens. There are two counterarguments to be made here: (1) that sedition (or espionage) is not the same thing as terrorism, and is thus outside the scope of the topic, and (2) that even if sedition could be considered a terroristic act, only some terrorists engage in sedition. But frankly, I see this sedition argument as being beaten back by my Contention Two, Sub-point A. That depriving terrorists of due process rights will only serve to incite more violence. If the terrorists incite violence, and then you aggravate the situation, you have made it worse, not better. It therefore seems in our self-interest to affirm. Also, if you accept my contention one, that due process is a universal human right, it doesn't matter what has happened in a historical context. The resolution is asking us what the U.S. OUGHT to do, i.e., what is the moral thing to do. Just because this is how something was done in the past, does not mean we ought to do it. The Con's second point, focuses on what happens when a terrorist or spy is caught on U.S. soil. Two things: (1) a spy is not the same as a terrorist as terrorism implies acts of physical violence, which spying does not, and (2) who is to say that the individual was captured on U.S. soil. The U.S. has hundreds of prisoners and accused terrorists who were captured abroad and the spirited back to detention centers like Guantanamo, where they are left to languish in prison with no means of legal redress. When the U.S. kidnapped them--which, arguably, it did--it also skirted the typical international legal protocols needed to extradite someone. This means, the U.S. did not give the individuals the right to protest their extradition/kidnapping, and the U.S. should, consequently, give them a fair trial now to prevent innocent people from being detained indefinitely. I think, though, that up until this point both my opponent and I are not really clashing that much, especially as my opponent states that "even Terrorist suspects should have some access to judiciary proceedings such as trial by tribunal." Therefore, I feel that the crux of this debate comes down to where to draw the line between "some rights" and the "same rights." The con suggests trials by tribunals as viable and fair alternatives. I disagree. According to Prof. Eugene Fidell, "Trial in federal district court affords a variety of constitutional protections not known to military commissions or courts-martial, such as indictment by grand jury and trial by a randomly drawn twelve-member jury of one's peers. It also guarantees an independent judge protected by life tenure. In contrast, military commission jurors are handpicked and the presiding judges lack secure tenure required for judicial independence." The con also suggests that civilian courts could not handle terrorism case, which I believe is also a fallacious assumption. According to Prof. Stephen J. Schulhofer, "The federal courts are already well-equipped to protect classified information and to handle all the other complexities of terrorism trials...terrorism suspects can be indicted and tried for their alleged crimes in the ordinary civilian court system. That approach will avoid further damage to America"s reputation for respecting human rights, and it will enhance our ability to win the whole-hearted cooperation of our allies in the global counterterrorism effort, including our ability to extradite terror suspects held in allied nations abroad. It will ensure an essential check on government power through independent judicial oversight of the momentous executive decision to deprive an individual of his liberty"and will also permit much more expeditious and efficient prosecution, conviction and punishment than a newly created system of military tribunals will ever be able to achieve." Once we reject this argument for distinguishing between "some" and "same" rights, that leaves my opponent with--as I see it--two main reasons to extend the accused only some rights. Those reasons are, as he alluded to and argued several times, (a) that it would be illegal to grant non-citizens equal rights and (b) that it would be detrimental to national security to do so. This second reason is directly addressed in my contention two, which lists myriad reasons why the pro side is actually better for national security. My arguments went unaddressed here in round one. The first reason, regarding the illegality of extending non-citizens the same rights, is both constitutionally incorrect, but also incorrect from the perspective of international law. I outlined in my first contention, which also largely was not rebutted, that international human rights norms make it both a moral and legal right of all people to have equal due process. But, additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court has set ample precedent for granting non-citizens the same rights. As observed by Prof. Richard Pious, "The Bill of Rights protects 'persons,' not 'citizens.' For more than a century the court has held that aliens are 'persons' under the meaning of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and therefore are entitled to due process." In the words of Prof. Gerard Clark, "The Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process of law applies to 'any person,' even a terrorist, who is accused of a crime by the Federal Government or any of its agencies. The Supreme Court has upheld this interpretation. No exception is made as such an exception would be contrary to the whole philosophy of human rights which makes the Constitution the great living document that it is. The immutable rights of the individual, including those secured by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, belong not alone to the members of those nations that excel on the battlefield or that subscribe to the democratic ideology. They belong to every person in the world, victor or vanquished." It therefore seems that as terrorists are "persons" that, constitutionally, the should get the same rights, not merely "some rights." This has been a fascinating debate so far, and I look forward to the con's responses.