Should the President Be Allowed to Detain Citizens Indefinitely in Wartime?
1.Mr. McCarthy uses Jose Padilla as an example of a citizen detainee and his designation as an “enemy combatant”. Stating that in certain circumstances such measures are necessary to prevent ongoing investigations and intelligence information from being compromised in a court of law if such a person were to be presented in court with a court case. Mr. Koch, on the other hand, states that it doesn’t matter what happens all “persons” are afforded the right to representation and a fair and speedy trial under the sixth amendment. Each author uses Mr. Padilla as their basis for their individual arguments. Each author also uses the case of Ex Parte Quirin, a case involving 8 Nazi spies entering the U.S. at differing times with the orders to cause harm. They were apprehended and tried by a military tribunal. One of these men was a naturalized American citizen. These men admitted to being Nazi spies. Therein lies the difference in the arguments put forth by both McCarthy and Koch. McCarthy states that what kind of terrorist is going to admit to being a terrorist? Their code of honor doesn’t work that way. Mr. Koch stresses the incidents of one of the spies turning himself in (and having trouble doing it).
He also talks about the fact that all eight spies were given the right to attorneys even though they weren’t American citizens. Both men talk about U.S. District Judge Michael B. Mukasey, but in totally different views. Each gentleman states opposite views on his comments and judgments. Mr. McCarthy states that Judge Mukasey wrote a 102 -page opinion siding with the President. At no time does McCarthy mention the reservations and aggressiveness that Mr. Koch discusses. It seems as though they are speaking of two completely different people.
The United States is at the forefront of modern democracy. Its unique three branched system allows the government to operate under a quasi-idealistic form of checks and balances. As outlined by the U.S. Constitution, the judicial branch of government serves as the interpreter of the law and is “one of the most sophisticated judicial systems in the world.”1 This complexity is a product of balance ...
2.Ex Parte Quirin can be used to bolster both sides. If persons of a nationality other than American are to be allowed a counselor, then why aren’t American citizens to be afforded the same privilege? On the other hand just because the eight gentlemen admitted to being spies doesn’t mean that anyone associated with al-Qaeda is going to stand up and say, “Yes I am a terrorist”. But they should also be allowed representation as per the sixth amendment. However Article I, Clause 2 of the Articles of the Confederation states that, “Congress cannot suspend habeas corpus except in cases of rebellion or invasion” (Berman/Murphy).
Using the rationalization that a person who willfully intends to do harm to American citizens could be considered rebellion and persons who are not citizens could be considered to be invading. Mr. Koch gives examples of accused petty thief Clarence Earl Gideon of Panama City, Florida in 1960 and accused rapist Ernesto Miranda in 1966 being afforded legal counsel on par with an alleged terrorist deserving the same treatment
3.My opinion is somewhat on the fence. I believe in preserving the integrity of ongoing investigations into future terrorist threats to our country while maintaining the rights and privileges afforded to us by the Constitution. If Zacharias Moussaoui was allowed representation while maintaining the secrecy of ongoing intelligence then why isn’t Jose Padilla, who is in the spotlight far less, being denied that right. He wasn’t in the military like George John Dasch, so does that entitle him more to representation or less? I’m not sure how I feel about this one. On one hand I feel that those who willfully entertain a wish to harm not only people in general, but as many as they can and without any personal knowledge of those people just because they don’t agree with them is incomprehensible to me. So why should I allow them to spend taxpayer money to defend their right to kill me? On the other hand if we are going to give a lawyer to the gang member that shoots children because they lived on the wrong street, then why shouldn’t others be allowed the same? I think both sides have an argument for the way things should be done. September 11 was truly a horrific event in our history and how can you blame people for not wanting to afford someone who is accused of being in the same vein the right to legal representation when they will be using taxpayer money and our legal system to try to avoid paying for a crime they either committed or were planning to commit? But if I were the one being accused and I knew that I hadn’t done anything wrong, I would want to be allowed full representation in a system I don’t have intimate knowledge of.
The French took to the streets with a series of riots, culminating in the event that Daumier turned into a lithograph that moved beyond caricature and turned public’s eyes on the horrors that the oppressed, and repressed silk workers of St. Martin experienced ? rst hand. The attack took place on April 14, 1834 when the French National Guard, under the command of King Louis Philippe (October 6, ...
4.I guess my questions would be from the vantage point of the sixth amendment. If you are going to allow people to come from other countries and claim asylum and people who commit horrible crimes to have representation, then don’t you have to allow alleged terrorists the same privilege? There has to be some sort of equality. On what basis would you rationalize not allowing someone legal counsel when Zacharias Moussaoui was allowed his days in court? As long as we don’t jeopardize our people in sensitive places, then what makes you think you can just hold a person as long as you want until they give the answers you want whether they are real answers or just what you want to hear so that maybe they can move forward and try to extricate themselves from the mess they are in? Lastly, how can we claim to be a democracy if we are only democratic when it suits us or when it will look good and reflect well on us, rather than for the good of the country and the safety and fairness to its citizens?