DDO WORLD CUP: Due Process for Non-Citizens in the U.S.
This debate is part of Daytona's World Cup Tournament. Voting is open to everyone w/ 2000 ELO or more, but it is an up-or-down win-loss ballot. I would like to thank Fanath for agreeing to this topic, and for agreeing to take a devil's advocate position (Pro) in order to get this debate off the ground.
Normally I prefer 5-round debates, but, unfortunately, I will be departing for CatNats shortly (my first time as a judge)! I cannot guarantee that I will have internet access when I arrive in Chicago. Therefore, all response times are just 48 hours, and there are only four rounds. It is my hope that this debate will conclude prior to the 22nd of May. To this end, I ask that Fanath accept this challenge quickly.
The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants to citizens
BOP is shared. Pro must show that non-citizens deserve the aforesaid rights, whereas Con must should that such rights ought not to be extended.
1. No forfeits
2. All citations must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final round
4. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss
R1: Pro Presents His Case
R2: Con's Case; Pro's Rebuttals
R4: Con's Rebuttals; Pro Passes
...once again to Fanath! I look forward to a good debate :)
Thanks for setting up this debate Con! Here's the link to the tournament if anyone's curious:
I'll show my case now.
(A) What the Constitution says:
Thanks to Fanath for a great debate! In this round, I shall be presenting my case.
The resolution requires that Pro uphold that non-citizens accused of terrorism receive the exact SAME rights as citizens. Therefore, I my duty is to show that the same rights ought not to be extended. However, I can still allow non-citizens to have some or many Constitutional due process protections, as long as I don't give them the "same" rights.
I propose that accused terrorists be brought before military tribunals in a timely fashion and without torture to determine guilt. This will prevent them from languishing in detention, while incarcerating those that are dangerous. I contend that the use of military commissions and post-conviction military prisons will maximize safety while preserving legitimacy.
CONTENTION ONE: Criminal Trials and Jails Jeopardize Public Wellbeing
Dr. Thomas Powers observes that, “Ordinary criminal courts are not designed…to provide the kind of security for witnesses, judges, and jurors required where terrorist attacks and reprisals are a concern.” Former US Attorney Michael Mukasey agrees, noting, “that the places of both trial and confinement for such defendants would become attractive targets for others intent on creating mayhem...”  Use of conventional courts would require that the prosecution disclose to the defense all documents to be presented at trial—risking an information leak. Prof. Ruth Wedgewood notes: “The 1980 Classified Information Procedures Act helped to handle classified secrets at trial, but doesn't permit closing the trial or the protection of equally sensitive unclassified operational information.”  According to Prof. Louis Klarevas: in criminal trials there is " not only the risk to the prosecution of revealing sources and methods, which is likely to be much greater than in an ordinary criminal trial, but also limitations imposed by criminal law on means of obtaining evidence. Means commonly employed overseas in covert operations, unauthorized wiretaps, for example, may render their fruits inadmissible in domestic criminal proceedings.”
John Pistole of the FBI notes that conventional prisons fails, stating that in “U.S. correctional facilities…Inmates are often ostracized, abandoned by, or isolated from their family and friends, leaving them susceptible to recruitment. Membership in the various radical groups offers protection, positions of influence, and a network they can correspond with both inside and outside of prison.” That is to say, conventional prisons encourage terrorist recruitment.
CONTENTION TWO: Military Detention Facilities Work
According to Clerk Tracey Gonzalez, “it’s simply impossible to put up defenses everywhere...against every conceivable terrorist threat. The only way to defend ourselves is to imprison the terrorists.” Prof. Matthew Morehouse states, detention of terrorists leads to fear of the possibility of arrest among other terrorists: “...detentions can assist states in combating their enemies through creating paranoia within the organization in the wake of an arrest.” According to Prof. Stephen David, “There are a limited number of people who have the technical ability to make bombs and plan attacks. If these people are eliminated, the ability to mount attacks is degraded...”
Ultimately, consider that when charismatic leaders are removed and effective isolated in military facilities, terrorist organizations are also impaired. Consider that the loss of an important, knowledgeable, and motivational leader can be a great detriment, in terms of leadership capacity and recruitment, to a terrorist organization.
CONTENTION THREE: Military Tribunals Work
According to Ashley Pope, JD, “trials before a military commission are the only option for detainees in custody that strikes a balance between the needs for legitimacy and detaining those too dangerous to release.” Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh notes, “Trying terrorists before military commissions offers a number of practical advantages...Commissions enable the government to protect sensitive national-security information that would have to be disclosed publicly before an Article III court. Ordinary criminal trials would subject court personnel and other civilians to the threat of terrorist reprisals; the military is better suited to coping with these dangers.”  Military trials are also fair, according to Prof. Peter Shane, because “Obama amended military commission procedures to (1) prohibit the admission of statements obtained through cruel…treatment; (2) give detainees greater latitude in their choice of counsel; (3) afford protection for those defendants who refuse to testify; and (4) place the burden of justification for using hearsay on the party using it.”
1 - http://online.wsj.com...
2 - http://www.law.yale.edu...
3 - http://lawlibrary.unm.edu...
Thanks! I apologize if my case was a bit rushed/haphazard. I am a bit high right now...valium has that effect. And before anyone asks, lol, I am taking it because it was proscribed to me by my physician.
Due to complications "In real life" I won't be able to post an argument this round. The rules call for an automatic FF of the debate.
Sorry about this.
|Who won the debate:||-|