History // Is the use of torture against terrorist suspect ever justified?
[Name of Student]
[Instructor’s Name]
[The Class Title]
[Date]
Is the use of torture against terrorist suspect ever justified?
Due process of law is a provision in U.S. Constitution which highlights that no man shall be deprived of his life, liberty, and property without recognition of his rights by means of significant procedures provided by the law. Due Process highlights the protection of civil rights, or those rights certain to all Americans as protected by supreme law of the land, of the accused during legal restraints on law enforcement, courts, and corrections. Each of its succeeding stages is intended to present formidable barrier to taking accused any further along in the process. It asserts that an accuse of murder, for example, has required to be investigated in a formal, adjudicative fact-finding so as to stress the confessions and admissions by persons in police custody be in truth rather than physical or psychological coercion.
The constitution guaranteed the protection of individual’s right. For instance, the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution aims to protect individual privacy interests from federal and state intrusion and to regulate government actors who may infringe upon those privacy interests (Weinstein 3)”. The core of this right is the prevention of government to conduct searches and seizures without warrant that is supported by probable cause. The wake of September 11, 2001 terrorists’ attacks calls for the value of national security. In effect, the balance between national security and the freedom of individuals perceived threats (Aziz 205).
US legislators from sustained debate examining the limitation of rights to privacy of individuals enacted law to expand government powers of surveillance for the sake of national security. However, the power expansion of executive department should remain in establishing the Fourth Amendment; that judicial warrant is required in the conduct of investigations relating to national security within the United States. In this respect, the court could authorize surveillance if the target of such investigation is “either a foreign power or the agent of a foreign power, and in the case of a U.S. citizen, involved in the commission of a crime (Weinstein13).” With regard to obtaining information from electronic communication, the government must establish the relevance of surveillance to an investigation of international terrorism.
In the case of security measures against terrorists’ attacks, U.S. government deals with shrewd ways to seize the strategic high ground for ‘war on terror.’ The nature and purpose of United States counter-terrorism measures ideally gives effect to security, but this does not mean abridging the constitutional rights of individuals. It prevents the action of violence and provides limitation in the event of breach and repression of those who conceived unlimited power. In fact, the presence of security measures does not automatically negates the existence of crimes, arbitrariness or even the abuse of power, but it is perceived as agent of normalization to prevent more damages caused by terrorism attacks.
The justice system is represented by a lady justice wearing blindfold and carrying a double-edged sword in her right hand and hanging balanced scales in her left. Traditionally, this has been the enduring themes of social policy and criminology. That justice sees nothing in holding judgment but merits of the case and stimulating an unbiased ruling without being influenced by personal discretion, culture, race, wealth, or vicious views of political players, who proactively lobbying the decision of the court. Significantly highlights the indispensability of the principle of rule of law, which means that no man is higher, no matter what his position may be, or possesses greater rights than every other man in the eyes of the law. According to Frankel, “under the rule of man model, judges or rulers can use their discretion to determine the law, and, at their pleasure, mete out different rules to similar parties or classes of parties; in which way, under the “rule of law” model, judges or rulers must follow general principles or standards, and may not change the law for particular persons or classes of persons except as permitted by law and rationalized on non-arbitrary grounds (p.2).” Thus, although this model does not fully reflect reality for most people believe that the rule of law reduces the influence of the unique characteristics of the judge or ruler and of the parties.
In reality, however, this is not the case because the power playing of politics engages in contemporary developments of decision of the courts. The traditional belief that innocence of a person is presumed until guilt is proven is fading away as it turned upside down by the concept of “guilty until proven affluent.” Especially in the cases of suspected terrorists who experienced torture from the hands of authorities. The affluence and power discloses influential issue in the premise of criminal law system. Innocence of a person is presumed in every case and no man can question his guilt until proven beyond reasonable doubt. Such that, the accused are held to be investigated and prosecutors have the burden to disclose evidence of facts against the accused. Justice system is adamant about impartiality. And that is why, the appointment of justices and judges are truly set within the standards of excellence and integrity, quality of empathy (understands and makes out the hopes and struggles of people), and stand the rule of law. Although judicial bodies put aside their private political views when deciding cases, the critical ingredient is supplied in judges’ heart that makes them vulnerable sometime.
Works Cited
Aziz, M. (2015). Counter Terrorism Measures via Internet Intermediaries: A First Amendment & National Security Dilemma.
Frankel, T. (1996). Symposium: Comment: Lessons from the Past: Revenge Yesterday and Today. Boston University Law Review, 76, 1-12.
Weinstein, J. S. (2014). Whose Metadata is it anyways? Why Riley v. California illustrates that the National Security Administration’s Bulk Data Collection is a Fourth Amendment Problem.
2017/5031
