The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism due-process.

Despite being a novice on debate I will accept your challenge. From a philosophical stand point I will debate against you. Nationalistically I would agree with you. The exception to this resolution is if the non-citizen accused of terrorism is fighting a guerrilla war on foreign soil where trial in absentia may be impossible due to the US constitution. Such as in the case of Anwar Al-Awlaki of Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula(AQAP). Definition/Summary Merriam-Webster definitions: War; a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict Reciprocity; a mutual exchange of privileges; specifically : a recognition by one of two countries or institutions of the validity of licenses or privileges granted by the other Treaties Geneva conventions of 1949; A series of treaties updated post-WWII that dictate the rules of war and the treatment of civilians, wounded, POWS, and enemy combatants. The US ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism due-process of law. I will provide historical evidence citing instances where the US extended non-citizens accused of terrorism due process. Such as the Nuremburg and Tokyo trials after World war II which includes acts of terrorism (i.e. Kempeitai and Schutzstaffel tactics that forced occupied nations to conform with the fascists) with war crimes. I will also provide the philosophies of John Locke whose philosophies were used in the US constitution to also show how the US being a Human rights champion should extend due process to combatants. This includes the Constitution since the Document is based on his Philosophies on Human rights. I will also include the Geneva conventions of war, and the that the US is a signatory of to augment the affirmative argument. As well as show how reciprocity would also be important, and argue that non-citizens also have the right to habeas corpus. (Boumediene v. Bush) Contention; 1) WWII and the Nuremburg and Tokyo trials. the Trial summaries and axis tactics involving terrorism in occupied or combat areas. Will not go indepth due to the thousands of court cases represented by the US, and respective allied nations, but will elaborate in the Second round 2) The US constitution being based on John Locke's Philosophies and the credibility of the US to lay down Human rights abuse allegations to nations such as Iran, China, and others which is undermined by the denial of non-citizens accused of terrorism the right to face trial. 3) Perspective, and the Geneva conventions. To label extremists as terrorists is also misleading due to two points. First the definition of Terrorism; A deliberate act of War using fear and violence on a group of people, especially for political purposes. The US would first have to recognize the extremists as legitimate enemy combatants instead of a criminal organisation to render the definition on the "terrorist" because of the definition of war. Second point is the perspective of Terrorism. For example the Mujahideen (some of whom (i.e.Al-Qaida) would later attack the US on 9/11) were referred to as terrorists by the Soviets but were called freedom fighters by the Reagan administration. Another example during the American Revolution the Sons of Liberty were known as freedom fighters to other American colonists, but terrorists and rebels to the British Empire.