The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/29/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,751 times Debate No: 25353
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




First i'd like to define some words:
Non-citizen as defined by the UN
UN 1985 ( accessed 8/23/12 aes)
"any individual who is not a national of a State in which he or she is present."

Terrorism: Department of Defense (DOD) defines it as the unlawful use of violence or threat of violence to instill fear and coerce governments or societies. Terrorism is often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs and committed in the pursuit of goals that are usually political.

The court's interpretation of constitutional Due Process evolved over time to include not only the "weight" of the interest but its application to the 14th amendment's protection of liberty and property

Contention 1: Due Process Bad – Lower Court Interpretation

Applying due process to non-citizens creates a balancing test lower courts have to interpret that make ad hoc determinations that undermine their effectiveness
Huffman, Dean and Professor of Law at Lewis and Clark Law School, 2000 ( * Dean and Professor of Law, Lewis and Clark Law School; B.S., Montana State University; MA, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University; J.D., The University of Chicago. RETROACTIVITTYH, E RULE OF LAW, AND THE CONSTITUTION James L. Huffinan* accessed 8/23/12
So, after Eastern Enterprises, it remains for the lower courts to advance the analysis beyond a mere balancing if the constitutional responsibilities of the judiciary are to be met.38 And, after Winstar, it falls to the lower cows to articulate the relationship between governnient contracts doctrine and the undergirding constitutional principles which constrain reliance on retroactive legislation in pursuit of the public welfare.39 Central among the responsibilities of the judiciary at any level is surely the pursuit of the principle of the rule of law.40 It is a challenging pursuit when the Supreme Court, .whose rulings are the law of the land, constructs a constitutional house of cards in the form of a wide array of balancing tests. In the modern world of constitutional balancing tests, divided opinions like Eastern Enterprises are inevitable, even if every member of the Court agrees on what constitutional provision or provisions constrain retroactivity. Reliance on balancing tests assures that judicial determinations of constitutionality are ad hoc. Courts are required to undertake fact intensive inquiries for the purpose of determining the weight of the relevant variables which tip the retroactivity balance. Such inquiries are not the traditional judicial activity of applying the law to the facts of the case. Rather they are more like the traditional legislative function of determining which aniong competing values will carry the day. As with the lawmakers in a legislature, it will be surprising if every member of the Court agrees on the best outcome in a particular case. And so we get Supreme Court opinions which require a score card to know what has been decided. Lower courts, legal advisors and ordinary citizens find themselves in the position of deciphering Supreme Court opinions as an exercise in something resembling the determination of legislative intent.

Cont. 2 WoT Effective now

US is slowly winning the War on Terror - Al-Qaeda is fading away and terrorism will fade as local governments work to stop terror – applying due process prevents effective strategy
Hudson 2/20/12 (John, Staff Writer The Atlantic Wire, "Al Qaeda Is Going Gently into the Night",
On the intelligence front, the CIA drone campaign as applied to Al Qaeda, has had a profound effect on the group's ability to carry out attacks, alongside efforts to cut off the group's funding. Much of these details came out in August, following the government's assessment of Al Qaeda in the aftermath of bin Laden's death and the killing of Abu Abd al-Rahman Atiyyat Allah, a senior Al Qaeda leader.�John Mueller�wrote about the government's findings in�Foreign Affairs. "A multi-agency task force has completed its assessment, and according to first reports, it has found that al Qaeda members have primarily been engaged in dodging drone strikes and complaining about how cash-strapped they are," he wrote. "Some reports suggest they've also been looking at quite a bit of pornography." Another major factor to the decline of Al Qaeda is internal divisions. As Juan Zarate, a counter-terrorism expert in the Bush administration wrote for�The New York Times, bin Laden's death unleashed "internal divisions and fractures within the movement." Reason being, bin Laden was "the symbolic, ideological and strategic core of the Qaeda movement. His ideological innovations reshaped the global terrorist threat in the 1990s -- focusing terrorist attacks on the 'far enemy' (the United States) and establishing the concept of the obligatory defensive jihad to defend Muslims against the West's purported war against Islam." Put together, you have a cocktail of forces working against the terror network's long-term livelihood.

Cont. 3 Human Rights

Perpetuation of terrorism causes diverse human rights violations – we must combat those that commit the crimes
Schultz, executive director of Amnesty International, 2004 (William F, executive director of Amnesty International USA, "Human rights and the evil of terrorism", UU World, February,
Nothing can excuse atrocities such as these. No appeal to cultural differences can excuse the husband. No pursuit of a political agenda can explain away the actions of the minister. Evil is real, and it is very important to call it by its name. When President Bush labeled those who terrorized Americans on September 11, 2001, "evildoers," he was absolutely right, and his instinct to avenge their deaths was, too. Human rights are designed to make the world a safer place and to help stop people from doing evil things. Terrorists may sincerely think that what they are doing is good, but advocates of human rights have no problem agreeing with the president: Terrorist acts are evil, and terrorists must be punished. To understand the evil that is terrorism, we need to understand many things: the psychology of hatred, the dynamics of group pressure, the appeal of religious extremism, the dangers of economic inequity, the pull of ethnic pride. These and many other factors have been debated endlessly since 9/11. But one thing has been largely neglected: the relationship between human rights violations and the birth and perpetuation of terrorism. Terrorists come, of course, in many shapes and sizes. Terrorism has deep roots and diverse causes. But one thing its various manifestations almost always have in common is that they have been fueled by violations of human rights. For example, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, the notorious left–wing guerrillas known as FARC, have managed to replenish their ranks, when they weren't engaging in forced conscription, by appearing to champion the economic interests of the impoverished against unyielding landowners and their allies in government. The Kurdistan Workers' Party, while at first alienating many Kurds in Turkey with its radical rhetoric and violent tactics, gradually earned widespread respect by standing up for the Kurdish minority's rights to political and cultural expression. And Sri Lanka's Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam were formed in response to the Sinhalese majority's persecution of the Tamil minority, including refusing them the right to vote, to receive a public education, or to use their own language. Terrorists commit vicious human rights crimes. But they also thrive on the crimes of others. Eliminating human rights violations would not stop all terrorism, of course. Terrorism must be comb


From Manhattan to Mindanao, Islamist zealots draw no distinction between combatants and non-combatants. Jihadists target women, children, and the elderly without even the pretence of discrimination. In June 2004, an Al-Qaeda affiliated group distributed a video proudly documenting the beheading of a U.S. civilian, proclaiming: "the mujahedeen from the Fallujah Squadron slaughtered the American hostage Paul Johnson."[2] By spurning the laws of armed conflict, Islamist terrorists have created a conundrum for democracies: how do you fight people who throw the rulebook of warfare out the window?

Human rights are relevant to terrorism as concerns both its victims and its perpetrators. The concept of human rights was first expressed in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which established "recognition of the inherent dignity and inalienable rights of all members of the human family." The innocent victims of terrorism suffer an attack on their most basic right to live in peace and security.

The suspected perpetrators of attacks also have rights, as members of the human family, in the course of their apprehension and prosecution. They have the right not to be subject to torture or other degrading treatment, the right to be presumed innocent until they are deemed guilty of the crime and the right to public trial.[3]

The focus by human rights groups and others on the preservation of terrorist suspects' human rights may seem jarring, or as if that focus comes at the expense of attention to the human rights of terrorism's victims. Human rights, however, cannot be considered a zero-sum game. Law Professor Michael Tigar put the issue eloquently when he reminded that governments, because they are the most powerful actors, have the greatest capacity for injustice. In the long term, an insistence that all states prioritize human rights and prosecute illegitimate violence will be the best defense against terrorism.

I shall now quote a man named Michael E. Tigar:

When we see that the struggle for human rights in all the world is the surest and best means to prevent and to punish terrorism properly so-called, we then understand what progress we have made, and we will see where we need to go from here.

Debate Round No. 1


As my opponent has not negated any of my contentions, let them flow through the argument.

Now onto my opponents case I disagree with all his contentions.

Vote CON


Not sure if that was a joke.

I disagree with all con's contentions.

Vote pro.
Debate Round No. 2


1337doc forfeited this round.


Vote pro.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by WizardofAnswers 4 years ago
@ 1337doc, I have a feeling you may have used your case from some other source, because I ran into one that look exactly like yours. Just thought I should point that out...
Posted by adontimasu 4 years ago
1337, you have to justify why you disagree with his contentions.
No votes have been placed for this debate.