Suspected Terrorist and Trial
In the eyes of citizens in many countries around the globe, the United States is a land that is full of freedom and justices. One reason why they see the U.S. as such is due to the fact that a sense of unfairness has been a part of their lives. Fairness is the rock that our court system has established in the United States. In today’s world, suspected terrorism has become a more increasingly important topic that needs to be discussed. The issue of alleged terrorism has now been entangled with the court system. Should a suspected terrorist be detained without a trial? To ensure a suspected terrorist is treated fairly, they should not be detained without a trial. …show more content…
One point that needs to be known is that proof is needed in order to label the suspect a terrorist in the first place. Every terrorist who is suspected should have evidence to prove they are one. Many people have been suspected of acts of terrorism, but have been wrongly accused. An example of this is in a 2006 case were a man named Mahr Arar was "falsely accused of being a terrorist by Canadian police and was shipped to Syria by the United States, where he was imprisoned and tortured, according to a Canadian commission" (Panetta). Mahr Arar was shipped to another country just off of accusations. There was no evidence actually connecting him to terrorism. In addition, an article by CBS stated, "Police had no evidence linking Arar to terrorist activity yet they asked the U.S. to put him on a watch list as an Islamic extremist" (Collins). This is a prime example of how intelligence must be gathered and a trial must take place in order to detain a suspected terrorist. Also in 1971, the Northern Ireland government found information that was false against suspected terrorist. "Hundreds of men were arrested, but many of them were released, after the authorities realized they had been relying on often out-of-date or inaccurate information” (West). This just shows the flaws of how some suspected terrorist can be accused of crimes of terrorism and how these suspicions are incorrect and unjust. If one has undeniable …show more content…
A court case in 2005 named Gonzales v. City of Castle Rock explains that limited rights are presented by the Fourteenth Amendment. Julie Hilden writes “The Court majority did concede that in certain limited circumstances the Constitution does require States to affirmatively protect individuals.” Yes, the government does have some rights to protect us, but the actual human’s rights still have to be upheld. I 've already stated in my last paragraph that it would violate the human’s rights even if he was a suspected terrorist. To exercise these rights, the government has established many anti-terrorist programs that have been made to counter the rise of these vicious attacks. These programs were started to protect the people from acts of terrorism, but have yet to actually resolve the problem. An example of this is a program called TSA, which stands for Transport Security Administration. This program has offered a decent, safe cushion to make the American people feel safe, but they have failed in catching any terrorist. Chris Leoacha states in his article, "Halinski was asked directly whether there has been even a single instance of an arrest or detention of anyone, in any way, related to terrorism based on airport whole-body scanners. His answer was, “No.” Then the war on terrorism has yet to be affected by the government. In fact, terrorism incidents increased
In the eyes of citizens in many countries around the globe, the United States is a land that is full of freedom and justices. One reason why they see the U.S. as such is due to the fact that a sense of unfairness has been a part of their lives. Fairness is the rock that our court system has established in the United States. In today’s world, suspected terrorism has become a more increasingly important topic that needs to be discussed. The issue of alleged terrorism has now been entangled with the court system. Should a suspected terrorist be detained without a trial? To ensure a suspected terrorist is treated fairly, they should not be detained without a trial. …show more content…
One point that needs to be known is that proof is needed in order to label the suspect a terrorist in the first place. Every terrorist who is suspected should have evidence to prove they are one. Many people have been suspected of acts of terrorism, but have been wrongly accused. An example of this is in a 2006 case were a man named Mahr Arar was "falsely accused of being a terrorist by Canadian police and was shipped to Syria by the United States, where he was imprisoned and tortured, according to a Canadian commission" (Panetta). Mahr Arar was shipped to another country just off of accusations. There was no evidence actually connecting him to terrorism. In addition, an article by CBS stated, "Police had no evidence linking Arar to terrorist activity yet they asked the U.S. to put him on a watch list as an Islamic extremist" (Collins). This is a prime example of how intelligence must be gathered and a trial must take place in order to detain a suspected terrorist. Also in 1971, the Northern Ireland government found information that was false against suspected terrorist. "Hundreds of men were arrested, but many of them were released, after the authorities realized they had been relying on often out-of-date or inaccurate information” (West). This just shows the flaws of how some suspected terrorist can be accused of crimes of terrorism and how these suspicions are incorrect and unjust. If one has undeniable …show more content…
A court case in 2005 named Gonzales v. City of Castle Rock explains that limited rights are presented by the Fourteenth Amendment. Julie Hilden writes “The Court majority did concede that in certain limited circumstances the Constitution does require States to affirmatively protect individuals.” Yes, the government does have some rights to protect us, but the actual human’s rights still have to be upheld. I 've already stated in my last paragraph that it would violate the human’s rights even if he was a suspected terrorist. To exercise these rights, the government has established many anti-terrorist programs that have been made to counter the rise of these vicious attacks. These programs were started to protect the people from acts of terrorism, but have yet to actually resolve the problem. An example of this is a program called TSA, which stands for Transport Security Administration. This program has offered a decent, safe cushion to make the American people feel safe, but they have failed in catching any terrorist. Chris Leoacha states in his article, "Halinski was asked directly whether there has been even a single instance of an arrest or detention of anyone, in any way, related to terrorism based on airport whole-body scanners. His answer was, “No.” Then the war on terrorism has yet to be affected by the government. In fact, terrorism incidents increased