What measures should the US Gov. take to protect Americans?
The blog entry is due before Saturday's class on
25 October.
Below you will find the dictionary.com definitions of Illegal Conspiracy, and the rights of American Citizens defined and applied by the fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Should US law enforcement by able to stop and detain people they think may be thinking of becoming ISIS soldiers or people who seem to be attempting to join other terrorist organizations? Do you think we should welcome the monitoring of cell phones and internet traffic of suspected, but not proven terrorists??
_____________________________________________________
I think that given the world today and the difficulties that we have been facing in terms of terrorism and overall fear, it is necessary for the government to arrest and detain a suspected terrorist. I think that for this idea to work, there must be tight precautions as to what characteristics classifies a person as dangerous. The main point of this would be to ensure that the arrests were NOT based on/affected by race or religion, instead, it would need to be for people who are dangerous to the general population. If we were able to create a system to only detain and arrest those that are suspicious and only those people, I think that the idea of doing so could be very helpful to the United States at this time.
ReplyDelete-Julia Allyn
In the preamble to the United States Constitution, our founding fathers wrote that the purpose of the Constitution was to "..provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty..". What this means is to unify as a nation to not only protect ourselves against outside enemies via military (the common defense), but to protect and advocate for the citizens' well being and support (welfare), and, most importantly, secure the rights and liberties of the people. Although we as United States citizens are protected and served by the Constitution and all things laid out by the Preamble, the world has become faced with challenging question. Our nation is no longer as safe and trusting as it once was due to outside forces that we have yet been able to control. In this uncertain environment, we must think of the bigger picture; whether it is more important to take one life to save the lives of many, whether our nation should be allowed to arrest and detain people who are suspected terrorists for our safety. Looking at the preamble to the Constitution, I see that the main attention of our founding fathers was for the safety of the nation as a whole. With this idea in mind, I think that our government should do everything in its power to protect the people. In the situation that the United States is presently under regarding terrorism with ISIS, I believe that not only should our government do all that they can to stop this horror, but also that they should take the extra step in protecting the people and arrest suspected terrorists. It would be better to arrest a suspected terrorist and let them go after being sure that they are no harm, than not knowing and risking the safety of others. In this case, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", and our nation must take charge and make an active effort to protect the people from further attacks.
DeleteJulia Allyn
While I personally believe the United States should detain suspected terrorists, legally this should not be allowed. As stated in the 14th amendment, ".. nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protections of the law". The constitution and its amendments clearly state that every citizen is entitled to due process, innocence until proven guilty, and also the need for a warrant before a search and property seizure takes place. Under the 14th amendment it is a constitutional violation to stop and detain suspected ISIS members. If we allow this it also sets the precedence to detain countless future citizens who are only suspected of crimes.
ReplyDeleteMorgan Handwerker
Eliza Griffin
ReplyDeleteOctober 24, 2014
Constitutional Law
The United States law enforcement should not be able to stop and detain people who they think might be a terrorist. However, they should be able to monitor cellphone and Internet traffic of suspected terrorists. In the United States, historically, we classify people as terrorists based on their racial profiling. The 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution states that “Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” If officials detain citizens, because they think that they might be a terrorist, they are depriving the man or women their rights of the 14th Amendment, specifically their rights of life and liberty. However, government officials should be able to monitor cellphone and Internet traffic of suspected terrorists because it could eliminate the act of illegal conspiracy. If a person is suspected to be a terrorist, it means that the government has information that they should investigate further. Even though this does contradict the 14th Amendment, Internet and cellphones were not invented when the Amendment was written. By having new technology, it develops new ways to communicate, and to share information from one person to another. As a result, the government should monitor this new mode of communication. The government searches bags at airports, has bomb detectors at the post offices, and has drug sniffing dogs, so they should be able to monitor cellphone and Internet traffic of suspected terrorist. Terrorism is a problem in the United States, and while there needs to be action in order to protect the country and its citizens, this needs to be done by respecting the people.
If the United States has the power to make an arrest due to a racial depiction of a terrorist, are we wrestling with the qualifications to be human? United States citizens hold a set of entitlements beneath their skin called “rights”, and when they are peeled away, we bleed injustice. Considering the recent threats imposed by Isis, my opinion in which would originally qualify a racist accusation of a terrorist without probable cause to be immoral, changes. Isis continuously exposes their plans to send members of their group to the US and kill innocent civilians on command. Due to the inability to depict a terrorist from a legal US citizen off the street, the risk of attack increases. So, on account of the threats from the terrorist group, Isis, It is fair to make an arrest for questioning because of suspicion.
ReplyDeleteMelody Barros
There have been many terrorist and attempted terrorist attacks on our country, some years ago, but also a multitude that have happened recently. I believe that the United States law enforcement should be able to stop and detain people they think may be contemplating becoming ISIS soldiers or attempting to join other terrorist organizations. With that being said, the way in which the United States law enforcement determines who is dangerous enough to be stopped and detained and who is not, should not be based on racial or religious profiling. The stopping and detaining of these suspected terrorists, whom they feel are a threat to the People of the United States, should be solely to protect our country and its citizens, not to promote racism, discrimination, or solidify racial stereotypes. In order to help the law enforcement do this in a manner that protects the country without infringing on people’s rights, I think it would be a good idea to welcome the monitoring of cell phones and internet traffic of suspected terrorists. Although these people are not proven terrorists, they have great suspicion cast over them for a reason and by monitoring their cell phones and internet traffic, the law enforcement will be able to get a better understanding of who these people are and what their intentions may be. If they are not guilty, then they should have nothing to hide, but if they are then this will help the United States law enforcement figure out what steps should be taken to ensure the safety of the People.
ReplyDelete- Emily Czajkowski
There have been many terrorist and attempted terrorist attacks on our country, some taking place years ago, but also a multitude that have happened recently. I believe that the United States law enforcement should be able to stop and detain people that they think may be contemplating becoming ISIS soldiers or attempting to join other terrorist organizations. In conflicting opinions, some individuals believe that if the United States law enforcement were to be able to stop and detain people that they believe are partaking in these acts, without a trial or significant evidence, it would infringe on their constitutional rights, particularly the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. With that being said, the 14th Amendment states, “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” by not stopping these people who intend, or have already, broken many United States laws, we are, in a way, not protecting the rest of the population and providing them with the “protection of the laws”. However, I believe that if we are going to give the United States law enforcement the power to stop and detain suspected terrorists, we must ensure that it is done in a constitutional way. The way in which the United States law enforcement determines who is dangerous enough to be stopped and detained and who is not, should not be based on racial or religious profiling, it should be determined by those who are highly suspicious, have evidence against them, or who pose threats to the rest of the public. The stopping and detaining of these suspected terrorists, whom they feel are a threat to the People of the United States, should be solely to protect our country and its citizens, not to promote racism, discrimination, or solidify racial stereotypes. In order to help the law enforcement do this in a manner that protects the country without infringing on people’s rights, I think it would be a good idea to welcome the monitoring of cell phones and internet traffic of suspected terrorists. Although these people have not completely been proven terrorists, they have a great enough suspicion cast over them for a reason, and by monitoring their cell phones and internet traffic, the law enforcement will be able to get a better understanding of who these individuals are and what their intentions may be. If these people are not guilty, then they should have nothing to hide, but if they are then this will help the United States law enforcement to provide enough evidence and reason to stop and detain them. Although some may think that both stopping and detaining suspected terrorists and monitoring their cell phones and internet traffic, are violations of one’s constitutional rights, ultimately it is more important to protect the People of the United States. In conclusion, by giving the United States law enforcement the power to stop and detain suspected terrorists, we will reduce the risk in our country and protect the People.
Delete- Emily Czajkowski (revised response)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteTerrorism has been one of the largest threats to our nation in recent years. We have seen the destruction terrorist acts can bring to our country, such as the tragic events on 9/11. The threat imposed by the rising ISIS group has begun to spread outside of our Nation. The U.S. must take every necessary precaution in order to ensure the protection of our people. Monitoring cell phones and other Internet devices is one efficient way of tracking any illegal acts. The U.S. should not however, target any citizens based on their ethnicity/religion/etc. This would be going against the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Amendment states, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” From this Amendment the people of the United States are given equal rights. No person should be targeted or detained as a terrorist based on their racial background. However, if someone is suspected of terrorist actions and the government holds proof, that person should be detained. Any person that is suspected of terrorism should be detained no matter their race or religious affiliation. If this applies to all citizens, equality among the people will remain untouched.
ReplyDeleteOlivia Good
The Government must protect the Nation as a whole. Why should the government protect and/or spare the life of one person, while thousands of others are at stake? The answer is simple they should not. Although the Fourteenth Amendment ensures that no person shall be deprived of Life, Liberty or Property without the due process of law, arresting and detaining a suspected terrorist is abiding by the Law. The United States preamble to the Constitution states that, "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The Constitution was created in order to protect the Country as a whole. The government must continue to establish general welfare and serve for the common defense of the people. With the imposing threat of ISIS, any suspect involved with the terrorist organization must be detained and undergo whatever is necessary to stop any harm that can be inflicted upon our Country.
DeleteOlivia Good
I do not believe that the United States should be able to stop and detain people they think may be thinking of becoming ISIS soldiers or people who seem to be attempting to join other terrorist organizations. Without sufficient evidence that can prove their involvement, it is not fair to take away the rights given to US citizens. The US cannot deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without the due process of law, as in the 14th Amendment. This means that citizens are “innocent until proven guilty”, and cannot have their rights denied without proof of their guilt and involvement in a terrorist group. Because of this, I also do not believe that we should welcome the monitoring of cell phones and internet traffic of those that are suspected. Doing this would be taking away these citizens freedoms and rights to privacy. They haven’t been proven guilty, so it isn’t fair to take away the rights of someone who is under suspicion without sufficient evidence that they are guilty.
ReplyDeleteMary Corcoran
I believe that the law enforcement in the United States should be able to stop and detain people who could be suspected of terrorism. Although it may deprive the rights of some citizens, I think that this is an exception to the US Constitution, similar to the Munn v Illinois case. I think that if the public interest is at stake, then law enforcement should be able to search people without proper warrant or probable cause. The only people who should be afraid of being searched, are those who want to illegally conceal something.
ReplyDeleteMonitoring cell phone and internet traffic of suspected terrorists would be a great way to limit terrorism in the United States. As long as the government is not sharing this information with the public, unless the suspect is proven to be a terrorist, then I do not think that any citizen is in violation of his/her rights.
Jack Lambrecht
D Period
I believe that the US law enforcement should not be allowed to detain, search, and interrogate people based only off of their religion and race. To single out a single race or religion as being terrorist is not the right thing to do. The fourteenth amendment to the US Constitution clearly states that, “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without the due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws.” Meaning they can not arrest people without following certain procedures, like gathering evidence and getting warrants. They also cannot deprive any person equal protection of these laws, meaning they cannot single out one race or religion and deprive them of the right to due process. Not only do I believe that suspected terrorists should only be arrested and interrogated after sufficient evidence has been legally gathered and a warrant for their arrest has been issued, but the fourteenth amendment requires it.
ReplyDelete- Will MacClarence
I firmly believe in not depriving any citizen of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law no matter what ethnicity, religion or gender the citizen is. However, if a citizen shows even the slightest hint of hatred or terrorism toward the United States of America the government should be granted the right to intervene. I believe phone messages and computer activity should be monitored for threats against our nation. If the government detects malicious behavior, law enforcement should then be granted the privilege to keep close tabs on the suspect. In this day in age law enforcement needs to be on its highest alert with such discrete technology. U.S. forces should be granted all means necessary even if it violates the privacy of any citizens.
ReplyDelete-Brendan Moloy
The US Federal government, according to the laws set by the Constitution, should not be able to spy on a person's phone and internet traffic. It violates the 4th Amendment which established no unreasonable search and seizure. But given the circumstances of today's society there is a need for there to be some domestic authority. The ISIS threat makes it harder to identify the terrorists. It will be easier for these terrorists to make an attack if the government does not go through the phones and internet. People may think that there will be racist motives but if they do it to all citizens and have a way to get alerted of suspicious actions then there will be no problem. It is also necessary and proper for the US Congress to pass a law to protect and maintain the welfare of the nation. The government should be allowed to monitor cell phone and internet traffic.
ReplyDeleteSam Topham
The citizens of the United States should have full faith and trust in the US law enforcement. That being said, I do not believe that the law enforcement should be allowed to stop and detain people without enough evidence that the suspect may be a terrorist. However, I do believe that in order to keep America safe, the law enforcement should be allowed to monitor cell phones for all citizens, not just a certain racial group or religion. The fourteenth amendment states that no citizen of the United States can be deprived of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”, using this amendment, one may argue that monitoring cell phones is unconstitutional, but, I believe that this contradicts the elastic clause. The elastic clause states that laws can be passed as long as they are necessary and proper. Keeping citizens of the United States safe from terrorism by the use of monitoring cell phones is very necessary in society. I believe that America has come a long way in overcoming racism, and it is still not completely gone. This is why I believe that if the law enforcement was to monitor cell phones, it should be for everyone. If they kept it specific to one racial group or religion, it would be declared as unconstitutional. After the incident of 9/11, racial profiling and fear of termism became more of a problem, and our society is corrupt with an image of what a terrorist looks like, and they don’t realize a terrorist could come from any race or religion. I strongly believe that US citizens should feel safe, and the US government and law enforcement should not protect us from one group specifically, but from everyone as a whole.
ReplyDeleteMolly Coleman
In addition, I believe that with enough legal evidence that a suspect is a terrorist, it should be legal to detain and even torture if necessary, to save the lives of the millions of people in the United States. For example, if rumors that a suspected terrorist is going to drop a bomb on Washington DC, that person should be detained to save the many lives of the people in DC. Why let a harmful man kill millions of others? In conclusion, I believe that the US law enforcement should have the ability to monitor cell phones for everyone, and with enough legal evidence, detain those who are suspected of terrorism.
DeleteMolly Coleman
Currently the world we live in requires us to think about the hard questions, the ones that concern our safety as citizens in the United States and the lengths that we would go to protect our freedom. The recent rise of ISIS is a perfect example because it calls attention to how we deal with those who may be a threat…and those who are actually a threat. The US government is constantly criticized for its method of dealing with suspected terrorists, but I think that US officials are doing their job and what is evidently necessary to an extent. If someone is suspected of joining ISIS or conspiring to commit an act of terrorism the US government has all the right to detain that person, citizen or not, because they present a threat to the country’s well being. I believe that when a situation or individual poses a threat to national security the government should be allowed to do anything needed to prevent a possible tragedy, if this means violating the rights of a citizen then so be it. The individual who is suspected of joining ISIS or responsible for committing an act of terror basically turns over their rights when they decide to turn against their country. Although it’s unconstitutional to deprive citizens of rights, the government must consider making some changes to combat the imminent rise of ISIS and other future threats to our country.
ReplyDelete- Grayson Keith
B Period
This is undoubtedly a very tricky subject. The citizens of the United States are fully entitled to their constitutional rights, and it is very important that these rights be protected. The 14th amendment protects the rights of the citizens from being violated by state governments, as well as the federal government. These laws are in place in order to protect the people of the United States from a tyrannical government. However, this subject becomes tricky when applied to the circumstance of government powers attempting to keep the people safe from terrorism. We all want to feel safe, protected and secure. We all also want our rights to be protected and not violated by the government that is keeping us safe and secure. I believe that if there is probable cause to think that a certain individual may be posing a threat to the safety of US citizens, then actions should be taken by government powers verify these suspicions. In order to maintain protection of a persons rights however, probable cause cannot be used in a loose fashion. A persons appearance, ethnic background, or religion can not be the sole cause of detainment and questioning. This sort of profiling is an unjustifiable violation of a persons constitutional rights. If there has been sufficient evidence presented that a person may be conspiring with organizations such as ISIS, then in order to protect the people of the united states actions must be taken in order to prove or disprove that this individual is a threat. This subject, again, is a very tricky one, but in short I believe that if there is serious enough reason to believe that a person poses a threat, then actions may be taken to investigate these suspicions. While the 14th amendment protects our rights to not be unreasonably detained and questioned, I believe to a certain extent that the safety of the US citizens takes priority.
ReplyDelete-Alex DeChellis
To try and put this situation into perspective, it is helpful to use an example that applies to the concept of this question. If you were put on the spot to make a decision between putting out a building fire with a supposed 20 people inside, and one with 1 person inside, what decision would you make? While both choices would have negative effects, a utilitarian view of morality in this situation would lead one to choose to put out the fire that would save 20 lives. The means necessary to attempt to keep US citizens safe from terrorist attacks will most certainly have their substantial amount of negative effects on those persons in question of being conspirators. However, if one were to choose to spare a suspected or known terrorist from interrogation, torture, or any other means of acquiring information, at what cost would they be doing so? It is a grave decision to make, and what makes it so difficult is that any option you choose will have serious detrimental effects. The thing to keep in mind is that no matter which way you look at it, you end up picking from the lesser of a set of evils for the greater good. The 14th amendment is in place to protect US citizens and the rights given to them by the United States Constitution. However, at what point, by maintaining these rights of certain individuals do you sacrifice the protection of many many more people? I believe that if a serious threat is posed to many lives by one individual, the difficult but in the end right decision would be to take whatever means necessary to protect the greater many. One of our governments most important jobs is to protect the people of the United States. If this means sacrificing the rights of one to save a great many, I believe that the most moral course of action is to choose to do whatever it takes to prevent what would otherwise be a far more grave consequence.
Delete-Alex DeChellis
The United States has come a long way in terms of the homeland security and identifying potential terrorists, however there continues to be attacks and threats every year. I do think it is wrong to detain people based off the stereotypical appearance that has been created through all the media, but to further improve the security and prevent more threats, I think it is necessary to detain a suspected terrorist, especially in this day and age. The consequences of the lack of protection and suspicion would be much greater than the consequences of detaining a few people. In this modern era with the dangerous weaponry it is vital to have power and control of these aspects; it is just a matter of finding a good equilibrium between people’s rights and the security.
ReplyDelete- Jack Harrison
The United States has come a long way in terms of the homeland security and identifying potential terrorists, however there continues to be attacks and threats every year. I do think it is wrong to detain people based off the stereotypical appearance that has been created through all the media, but to further improve the security and prevent more threats, I think it is necessary to detain a suspected terrorist, especially in this day and age. The consequences of the lack of protection and suspicion would be much greater than the consequences of detaining a few people. In this modern era with the dangerous weaponry it is vital to have power and control of these aspects; it is just a matter of finding a good equilibrium between people’s rights and the security. On the other hand, if one person, a potential terrorist, has already violated the rights of others, should they deserve to have their rights? If a known terrorist has infringed upon the rights of many innocent people then why should they deserve their rights? In a war you fight the enemy, you don’t think twice about eliminating their existence or torturing them to gain more information, so therefore we should be able to pursue this conception in terms of terrorism: if we know of a terrorist, we should be able to eliminate their threat and if there is a possibility to gain more information, we should enhance that opportunity. There will be consequences either way, whether it be many people or a couple, therefore, I believe that it is more beneficial to hurt one person, who has already violated others’ rights, than to hurt a mass amount of people who are innocent.
Delete- Jack Harrison
In the United States today, our government has the ability to monitor phone calls of every American. To many, this is an act that infringes on Americans simple rights to privacy and freedom of speech. To others, it is seen as the government simply doing their duty to protect our citizens from terrorism. In my opinion, I believe the government has the right to use their technology to monitor our phone calls, as long it is being used to protect all of America. I am not a human of any suspicion like many of the people I live around. On the other hand, there are people out there that look to kill Americans as an act of terror. Because this is so, I believe the government should monitor our calls equally. This means every, and I mean every American, not based on race, color, gender, should be monitored. I believe that the stereotype has come to the point where every Middle Eastern, dark skinned Muslim is a terrorist. In fact many Muslims are very religious and believe in the opposite of violence. Many of today’s mass shooters are white college students, and because of this, everyone should be at least monitored at one point in their life. Although it says in the fourth amendment that the government does not have the right to make laws that hinder the rights and privileges of Americans, there has been no law that says that the government cannot monitor phone calls if someone is considered a threat. I fear that due to the growth of groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda, that the United States will be receiving more and more terrorist threats. If this happens, Americans might see their individual privacies lessened, but this is what needs to happen in order to keep our citizens safe. The U.S. government cannot provide the country with happiness if there are threats of mass killings. I believe the government has the right to monitor our phone calls, as long as it is done without suspicions due to race, color, or gender.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the 14th Amendment to the U.S Constitution serves to protect only the citizens of the U.S. I do not believe that there is an easy or straight forward response to this question, rather it depends on the specific situation. Given the 14th Amendment, a citizen who is suspected of terrorism should not be detained without probable cause and the due process of law. However if the person in question is not a U.S. citizen and he/she is highly suspected, then the U.S. Government should have the power to detain or question that person. Having said this, I believe that there should be more laws to stop the poor treatment or extended detention of any person, U.S. citizen or not. If a law was created like “if no evidence comes to light within a day or some other period of time, then all charges against the accused should be dropped.” As to the NSA monitoring online activity and cellphone usage, I believe that the NSA should have the right and power to listen into any conversation or monitor online traffic taking place on U.S. soil. This includes everyone, not just suspected terrorists. I personally do not care if my government hears my conversation as it does not affect me. I have nothing to hide as long as they do not release information that they over hear on my phone. It is proven effective that listening for key words helps us prevent and monitor terrorist activity. I would rather be safe than sorry when it comes to the government monitoring online activity and cellphone calls.
ReplyDelete-Ben Lang
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” –Benjamin Franklin
ReplyDeleteThe 5th Amendment says, “No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without the due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The 14th Amendment makes this clause (as well as all the other privileges or immunities granted to the citizens of the United States by the U.S. Constitution) applicable to state governments.
I believe that the question of whether the US law enforcement should be able to stop and detain people for any reason without a probable cause should not even be considered. Stopping and detaining a person based off suspicion is clearly depriving that person of their liberty. If the United States Government allowed this to happen, they would be contradicting the 5th Amendment, therefore causing any evidence they find from that point on to be void in court.
I also believe that we should not welcome the monitoring of cell phones and Internet traffic of suspected terrorists. One hundred years ago, Internet and cell phones did not exist. In order to communicate to one another long distance, people would have to write. A letter is a private piece of property. United States Law Enforcement would not have been allowed to open the letter and read it before it was given to the receiver because it would be a direct violation of that person’s private property (which is protected in the 5th Amendment). Today, the same type of long distance communication is made by different means: phone and Internet. I believe that even an electronic message is a piece of private property. Tapping and monitoring these messages without reasonable cause would also be a violation of this person’s 5th Amendment right.
Although terrorism is something to fear today, it does allow the United States Government to disregard the U.S. Constitution that protects the people from their government. Liberty is a wonderful gift that’s hard to keep safe. The more liberty a person allows to give away, the harder it is to get it back or protect the little freedom they have left. In World War II, the United States created internment camps that Americans of Japanese decent were forced to live on. The reason was to keep the United States safe from members of the Japanese army that may have been living in the U.S.: the same reason for why the United States wants to infringe on the people’s rights, today. What happened in 1942 is about to happen again. Sometimes, we learn history so we won’t repeat it; that’s why we’re in Constitutional Law.
By Sarah Kinney
I made a mistake in my blog post:
Delete"Although terrorism is something to fear today, it does allow the United States Government to disregard the U.S. Constitution that protects the people from their government." should actually be...
"Although terrorism is something to fear today, it does NOT allow the United States Government to disregard the U.S. Constitution that protects the people from their government."
And my sources is the U.S. Constitution and google to find the year for when the internment camps were created.
In the past two decades roughly, the United States has been faced with major terrorist threats. Now the United States takes many precautions, especially in airports to prevent such terrorism from entering or flying within its borders. The 14th Amendment, which makes the rights in the Bill of Rights applicable to federal and state governments, says “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without the due process of law;…”. But, I think that if the governments have enough evidence of a person joining terrorist groups such as ISIS, that person or those persons should be apprehended and detained. Then again, if the US starts to take people into custody for just suspicion or wrongful conspiracy of joining religions or groups, it would be unconstitutional. I do believe that for the betterment of the country, the US will have to draw a line and have to take action against expanding tyranny. They will have to soon monitor cell phones and computers for suspected terrorist. My reasoning for that derives from a statement said in the Munn v. Illinois case of 1877. In this famous case, the chief justice said in an argument against Munn, “If the public interest is at stake, the states can pass laws that regulate prices”. In terms of the 14th and the citizens of the United States rights, if the public safety is at stake, then the federal government should have the right to abridge some of the rights of the persons causing the danger. If the country takes care of the public safety and well-being of its people first, the US will become safer as a whole and become more stronger to fight against the present dangers of terrorism.
ReplyDeleteBy Justin Donawa ^^^
DeleteThe United States should not be able to detain suspected terrorists without probable cause. If they suspect a person to be a terrorist they need probable cause. They cannot detain, search or seize anything or anyone based only only religion. If there is probable cause and/or they have the proper warrants the United States law enforcement should detain suspected terrorists. For a person to be detained they must be accused and arrested for their crime but can only be detained for 24 hours unless they are presented with formal charges.The government shouldn't monitor personal phone calls but should look on the internet for possible threats. However without proper warrants and the due process of law there should be no illegal detaining of any suspected terrorists. The government must allow the citizens of the United States to exorcise their rights given to them by the Constitution. Although terrorism is a terrifying reality the idea of the government being powerful enough to arrest citizens without reason or formal charges should be more of a fear for the people of America.
ReplyDeleteLuke Amero
If law enforcement detains a person solely for the reason of that person’s possible connection to a terrorist organization or terrorist activities, then the law enforcement would be violating many of that citizen’s constitutional rights. However, it important to recognize that such action by law enforcement would be wrong only if the citizen was detained. It is acceptable for someone to be interrogated by police for suspected terrorist activities as long as the person being questioned is aware that he or she is being interrogated and that they are suspect. The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no citizen can be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The fourteenth amendment ensures that all states must guarantee the rights given by the constitution to all people under its jurisdiction. Since it would violate the due process of law, detaining someone for potential connection to a terrorist organization without formally charging them with a crime would be a constitutional violation.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to law enforcement monitoring peoples phone calls, and internet activity, the constitution does not provide a simply answer. Since both of these technologies where hundreds of years from being invented when the constitution was written, it comes down to an individual’s interpretation of the constitution. In my opinion, phone calls fall under the “effects” clause of the fourth amendment. Phone calls are private by nature and therefore protected against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” Unless law enforcement has probable cause and goes through the proper legal process, then it cannot view person’s phone calls. However, a person’s internet activity, specifically on social media, is public by nature. Since the internet is a public forum, and anyone can hypothetically see your activity, it is ok for law enforcement to monitor it.
While it is easy to let fear push us into allowing the government to infringe on our rights in the name of safety, it is imperative that we hold law enforcement to the standards set by the framers in the Constitution. Our country needs to define what is allowed and not allowed to be done in the modern era by the government and law enforcement. The framers gave us rights that could not be infringed upon for a reason, and its important that we do not give those rights up willingly, just because we are afraid.
Jay Allen
When it comes to the United States safety, there is a fine line between reasonable search measures and discrimination. The fourteenth amendment grants “equal protection of the law.” It is important we recognize ISIS in the matter of “innocent until proven guilty.” As written in the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, no state shall, “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law.” We cannot discriminate those we suspect to join ISIS, only those who are part of ISIS and causing harm that infringes upon other people’s rights. When it comes to the protection of the people, we must address issues of safety without discriminating against people based on religion, ethnicity, race, and so on. If there is sufficient legitimate evidence and reason for investigation of terrorism, then the US must take measures to investigate monitoring cell phones and Internet usage. The United States should only be allowed to detain and investigate suspected terrorist upon probable cause. The United States must regard all parts of the constitution; the constitution grants individuals freedoms and protects these freedoms under the contingency that they do not violate the freedoms of others.
ReplyDeleteAlyssa Cass
I think that the United States law enforcement should not be able to stop and detain people who they assume may be terrorists. I believe this because a lot of people being suspected as terrorists happen to be of a minority race. Racism happens every day, and a major part of the problem is that sometimes people don’t even know when they are being racist. I have seen racism first hand; when people automatically think a black person wants to cause trouble, or at an airport when a man is searched because of the seemingly middle-eastern clothes he is wearing. It is wrong to stereotype people and to think differently of them because of their backgrounds. Imagine an average white American citizen was in a middle-eastern country and they stopped and detained him because they thought he was a terrorist. It would probably make news headlines for mistreatment and racism, and it would be a huge issue, whereas here in America it is considered keeping citizens safe. Terrorism has been a major problem, however racial profiling isn’t the way to stop it. We are a nation of immigrants and each background represented has its pros and cons. In order for us to really say our citizens are free and equal, the racism and profiling has to stop. We can find better ways to be safer.
ReplyDeleteKoko
As far as the safety of United States citizens are concerned The national government should be allowed to exercise any measures they feel is necessary to protect those of our country. American lives are first priority to the national government the term "protect and serve" fits accordingly to such a question. What could be discussed is the question how much power should entrusted with the government? should people's privacy be invaded on the assumption that they are devising the means to harm our country? Personally if we were to grant such power then we would have to accept the fact the government could be false on their accusations, so in a sense be wavering our rights as citizens to insure more safety to our people. Which raises another question, How safe do we want our country to be? Or how much government do we want to allow in our lives? These are questions an American must ask themselves whether or not they are willing to release some of their freedom. Therefore the measures the government can pursue will more than likely be based upon a higher suspicion or hopefully probable cause. But are suspicions great enough to give up our rights of privacy and freedom?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteRight now, the greatest national threat to the US is an attack on domestic soil and ISIS has said, repeatedly, that it plans to do this. It is therefore essential that the US Government take all necessary precautions to prevent an attack: including the monitoring of cell phone and internet traffic of suspected terrorists. I do believe that this monitoring must abide by the fourteenth amendment and provide the suspects with the "due process of the law". Before monitoring cellphone or internet traffic of a suspect, the government must have sufficient evidence (far beyond simply the race, religion, etc. of the suspect) to believe the suspect is a terrorist conspiring against the US. If such evidence is provided, I do believe it is within the rights of the US Constitution to lawfully monitor the behavior of the suspect in order to protect the general welfare of the United States citizens.
ReplyDelete-Dillon Cunningham
Every day, fear caused by the radical muslim terrorists threatens the general welfare of the American public. Those that choose to murder, humiliate, and mutilate the masses in the bastardized name of God are greatest threat to the United States of America, and the world. Currently, the US is fighting the most powerful, wealthy, aggressive, and radical extremist group it has ever faced, ISIS. ISIS leadership has repeatedly stated that it plans to attack the American people, on American soil. If such radicals attempt to terrorize American citizens, it is not only within the rights of the US Government to take action, it is required.
DeleteThe US Constitution, the supreme law of the land, was written to "ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty". It is therefore essential that the US Government take all necessary precautions to prevent any such actions that may infringe upon this mission. The US Government must take any and all actions to secure the rights of its people; this includes monitoring or arresting and detaining suspected terrorists, and using advanced interrogation techniques on known terrorists to prevent attacks. The fourteenth amendment makes the fifth amendment, which protects citizens from being "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without the due process of law ", applicable to state and local governments. This would make any action -- especially the monitoring and arrest and detaining of suspected terrorists and use of enhanced interrogation techniques -- that may inhibit the natural rights of any persons in US jurisdiction, illegal. However, by conspiring to murder, humiliate, and mutilate the citizens of the United States, the radical terrorists are inhibiting the rights of the American people and are therefore waved of any of their rights provided to them in the US Constitution. Furthermore, in a matter of ethics, it is just for the US Government to take extraordinary measures to protect its citizens. If the US Government were to monitor the cellphone and internet traffic of persons it believed (after obtaining substantial evidence, beyond race and religion, to believe so) to be radical terrorists conspiring against the American people or to use "enhanced interrogation techniques" to obtain information from a known extremist that would lead to the protection of US citizens, they would be right to do so; it is more important to save the lives of many than protect the rights of one (especially one who is trying to destroy the lives of the innocent). It is not only within the rights of the US Government to arrest and detain, monitor and interrogate, suspected terrorists, it is required by the US Constitution that they do so.
- Dillon Cunningham
Human rights are the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are considered entitled: the right to life, liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equal treatment before the law, among others. Such rights are ascribed "naturally," which means that they are not earned and cannot be denied on the basis of race, creed, ethnicity or gender. We must first recognize that this is not primarily a war between the United States and radical Islam. It is a war within Islam itself for the soul of the faith. Until Muslims and Islamic religious authorities in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere can offer a true and convincing vision of Islam to young men such as Ahmad, we will lose the battle for their souls. In efforts to protect its citizens the Unites States government should not infringe the right of suspected people i.e. detaining suspected terrorists without proper conviction because this is not an American government battle. By making it so, the U.S. government will continue this fight for years, if not decades, as President Obama concedes. An effective response against extremism can only come from Muslims themselves. The United States was built upon freedom and liberty. The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic that protects liberty and civil rights by strictly limiting the powers of its government hence the government has limited or no right to enforce and try to limit terrorist attacks by being able to stop and detain people they think may be thinking of becoming ISIS soldiers or people who seem to be attempting to join other terrorist organizations. Its high degree of personal liberty allows people the space and freedom to pursue happiness, but it also leaves American society more vulnerable to terrorist threats. The terrorists of late 2001 took advantage of the weaknesses of U.S. security its international borders, its immigration policies and its financial management systems. Terrorist attacks can come from any direction, at any time, in any manner bombs, fires, even biological and chemical weapons. Since, practically speaking, not everything can be protected; the United States government should focus on the protection of critical infrastructures such as public transportation systems (bridges, subways, railroads and airplanes, etc.) and facilities (nuclear power plants, oil storage's', and water utilities, electric utilities, etc.). Because the United States want to limit the power of the government and protect the rights of the citizens by providing liberty and freedom at all levels the United States constitution doesn't allow detaining and infringing the general public’s privacy i.e. spying on people by monitoring of cell phones and internet traffic
ReplyDeleteAnother kushaina
According to the 5th amendment, “No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without the due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” This amendment states that a citizen of the United States shall not be deprived of their liberty, life or property without a process of law. With that being said I do not believe that the United States government can detain and torture a "suspected terrorist." I was raised believing that no matter a persons race, religion, or any other background, that person shall be treated equally. I understand that the United States has faced many terrorist situations over the past few year, but it does not give them the right to detain and torture an individual based off of a hunch their assumptions. Detaining these individuals based off of an assumption violates that individuals 5th amendment, depriving them of their liberty without due process of law. I do not believe in torture of individuals who are labeled as terrorism. If i cannot torture someone, I do not believe that someone else should do it for me. Torturing an individual is cruel and beyond me. But some when do you start torturing and when do you stop torturing terrorists? At what point is is acceptable to begin torturing and belittling these suspected terrorists? Where is the limit in which you stop and begin torturing these terrorists?
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting point is if torturing actually works. What is stopping these terrorist from lying and not telling the truth? These terrorist could easily lie about the location of a bomb or names of other known terrorists, in order to stop the torturing.
Terrorism is a very sensitive subject and many believe in terrorism, but I do not believe in it. I was raised believing that everyone is equal and that terrorism is against my belief system.
James Coyle
The United States should not be able to detain people who are suspected to be terrorist, unless there is sufficient evidence and probable cause. Suspected is the key work here, what does suspected mean. The dictionary says that suspected means to have an idea or impression of the existence of something. The word idea in this definition means it’s not factual, unless proven to be true. If you detain someone because you SUSPECT they are a terrorist you are going against the United States Constitution but also the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal; how does arresting someone because of a “hunch” you have treating them equally? It is not. Connecting this to the Constitution, the United States started to treat all citizens equal through the first, fifth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, and nineteenth amendments. In these six amendments, slaves were freed and given citizenship and women were given citizenship and are able to vote. Of those amendments, the most significant to this question is the first amendment. The first amendment gives the freedom of speech, religion, press, petition, and assemble. A question that is brought up about this topic is should the government be able to personal phone calls and Internet usage? My opinion is no they should not. It totally goes against the United States Constitution and the First Amendment. ‘Spying’ on the country and the people in the country goes against the freedom of speech. Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if the United States watched and observed and listened into more conversations of Muslims and people of other religions. If that is true, that also against the First Amendment and the freedom of religion.
ReplyDeleteSo in conclusion, I do not think that the United States should be detaining and spying on people that are suspected to be terrorist.
- Haleigh Sullivan
After talking in class, new views were brought into my head. In my first response to this question, I explained that no they should not be arrested and detain. I argued that it was unconstitutional and goes against the First Amendment; however, after talking my point of view has been altered. Molly Crabtree brought up a good point that yes, the First Amendment gives the freedom of speech, religion, and so on, but to a certain extent. The Preamble of the Constitution states, “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare” (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/preamble); the key word in that little paragraph is ‘general welfare’. Yes the Constitution and the Bill of Rights give freedom to the Citizens of the United States, but what happens if they go to far as to threaten the ‘general welfare’ of the rest of the population? Remember earlier how I was talking about a certain extent, well that is it. As we look at it, is hurting, torturing, and ruining one person’s life worth ruining thousands or even tens of thousands of others; no, not in the eyes of the government, but also not in mine. Therefore, yes people suspected of being a terrorist should be arrested and detained.
Delete- Haleigh
Credit to:
Molly Crabtree and Link above
International terrorism continues to be a worldwide threat. In a period of time where the technological advancements allow for disastrous weaponry, these threats are becoming more serious. Currently, the United States is dealing with threats from Islamic extremist group ISIS. It is the United States government’s duty to protect the citizens; therefore, if members of ISIS were to come to the United States, they would be captured and detained to ensure the safety of the Nation. This idea of capturing and detaining becomes an issue for the federal government if they are not certain, but have presumptions, that someone of the Islamic race in the United States is a member of ISIS. US law enforcement should not be able to stop and detain people they think are ISIS soldiers. If they did, they would be violating constitutional rights of the citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment was designed to, and does, ensure that the citizenship of the United States is constitutionally protected for all. As stated in the fourteenth amendment “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This reiterates citizens must be recognized no matter what race or ethnicity they are. The amendment then proceeds to state, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Simply put, citizens cannot be deprived of their rights. It is the government’s duty to protect them. In 2010, there were a projected 3.5 million people of the Islamic race who were citizens of the United States. Detaining these citizens would mean violating their rights protected by the constitution. Furthermore, since laws cannot be passed that abridges the privileges of citizens, we should not monitor the Internet or phones of suspected citizens. Monitoring these calls would be equivalent to trying someone in court without the due process of law. The Constitution projects that all citizens should be treated equally; therefore, no suspected terrorist should be detained.
ReplyDeleteMolly Crabtree
nice to hear from you
DeleteAlthough suspected terrorists should not be blamed for unjust wrongdoings because it infringes upon their rights, if there is distinctive evidence that someone is a terrorist, US officials have every right to detain. Once detained and captured, I also believe that officials have every right to take whatever measures are needed to get information out of the terrorists that have the potential to affect the lives of countless Americans. This may involve drastic, traumatic measures. These measures could extent to torture. Torture entails many different cruel and unusual punishments. These punishments are necessary and just. If a terrorist or terrorist group plans on taking the lives on American citizens, they are infringing on their rights. The first Amendment talks about how citizens are given the freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition, unless they infringe upon the rights of others. Since terrorists would be infringing upon the rights of many Americans, they should be stripped of their rights; therefore, the government has the right to torture. It is the governments duty to protect the rights of citizens. If torture is the extent they must take, it is just. We as a country must be proactive in capturing known terrorists before it is too late. If we are simply reactive to their motives, the lives of countless Americans could be lost.
DeleteOver the last 15 years the war on terror has been a burden on the whole world but especially on the United States. After the horrific attacks on 9/11 Americans have feared the Middle East and developed a strong stereotype towards Muslims. The U.S. government has faced incredibly difficult decisions regarding the Middle East and terrorism. Most of these controversies have only involved relativity small groups of terrorists compared to a whole country’s population. The government has had to find the best way to protect our country and Americans, while trying to be diplomatically correct with the Middle Eastern countries. It’s extremely difficult to balance the two and be effective in both areas. This issue raises the question of what armed forces and Special Forces should be able to do to gather information about terrorism. We have seen navy seals to go into countries without permission to kill. We have seen movies showing the torture suspected terrorists go through. This subject of torture to gather information on terrorism is clearly sensitive, but to me homeland protection is the most important aspect in this war on terror. I believe that U.S. law enforcement should have full access to do anything that could help save innocent Americans. Torture is horrible, and I could never do it to the extent of the professionals but, I believe it is a part of war and protecting America.
ReplyDeleteSpencer Cookson
I believe the 14th Amendment protects us in both its words and its interpretation. This amendment was intended to give equal rights to all races/religions/etc, and racial profiling would be a violation of this amendment. Though it may result in one ISIS member being captured, at what cost? For the one member of the group they may catch, there may be thousands whose rights were violated in the process. While I believe in the protection of our citizens, I do not support profiling, as I believe acts like this may spread false ideas and confirm stereotypes. I think that these suspected of terrorism should not be arrested based on legally acquired evidence. So what happens after the suspects are detained? I believe in interrogation, but the lengths that is has gone to I find inhuman. People are trying to beat information out of others that are willing to strap a bomb to their chest for their cause. If this is the case, I don't see what information you can get out of them. There's so much hurt in the world and torture is just perpetuating this endless cycle of vengeance. My mom was in Boston the day of the bombing, and though I could have lost her, if given the option to torture information out of someone to protect my family, I couldn't. And because I couldn't, I don't think anyone should. I think that if I couldn't do it, I shouldn't be passing it along to anyone else. People also don't recognize that while torture might solve an immediate problem, it creates one substantially worse in the long run. Not many people know what living with PTSD is like, but I wouldn't wish it on anyone. Even on a more global scale, we need to be fighting the war on inequality instead of the war on where the next bomb is going to be placed. It seems to be like we're just trying to plug every hole in a pasta strainer. The Bill of Rights wasn't written for citizens of the United States of America, it was meant for everyone. Its founders wrote these rights for citizens believing that they should be entitled to everyone. This is why they fought so hard to get the 14th Amendment passed. You have your rights no matter what, because they are your rights as a human. If you are suspected of terrorism, and the prosecution has proof, do you become 3/5 of a person? Is that the final compromise? And if this becomes the case, what justifies terrorism as a crime worse than anything else, because its all relative. I believe everyone is equal, regardless of what horrible things they've done, that's just the way it is.
ReplyDelete--Elizabeth Hosage
I believe that U.S should take drastic measures to protect its citizens. My idea of drastic measures would include enforcement by stopping and detaining people they think may be thinking of becoming ISIS soldiers or people who seem to be attempting to join other terrorist organizations. I do not agree that illegal conspiracy should be an option unless it is a last resort. Illegal Conspiracy is defined as evil, unlawful, treacherous, or a surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more people. So, monitoring of cell phones and Internet traffic of suspected, but a not proven terrorist is not wrongful. I understand that you don’t choose your a race, so just because of a race no person should be suspected as a terrorist unless there is proof. But if there is even a small percent chance you can be saving lives or invading someone’s privacy. Article XIV states the United States citizens should not be deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. I believe that the perspective of not depriving anyone of his or her rights should apply to everyone, even if you are not a U.S citizen. But to simplify the problem it can be solved and broken down into three different ways. First, if you have one hundred percent proof that someone is a terrorist you should be allowed to do what torture it takes to save innocent people. Second, if there is no proof we as a country cannot racial profile, because there are innocent people of the terrorist’s race. I understand that my opinion goes back and forth, but overall I believe our country should do anything to protect its people. Many people who say do not torture people that are guilty and known terrorist are wrong in my opinion. If the situation was person and affected anyone personally, for example if it was a family member you would do what ever it takes. So everyone who is a citizen of the United States should look at each other as family and if you can potentially save your family member by torturing known terrorists you shall do so. As for other countries, we should help each other out in cases like Osama Bin Laden. If a situation is not big, let that country deal with it, but if it is out of hand we as human beings should help each other. I know that it is wrongful to torture people, but if you can save innocent lives I believe that the right people should be able to do it.
ReplyDelete-Samone DeFreese
In the midst of an age of terrorism, the United States has come across numerous difficult questions regarding their ethics and how they treat potential terrorists. The U.S has been a major victim of terrorism, and to find the people that plot such events, the government, specifically the CIA, uses certain tactics that are looked upon with skepticism. To obtain information regarding terror attacks, torture has been used to get answers from terrorists, or people who are associated with terrorist groups. If the CIA, or Department of Justice is 100% positive that who ever they are dealing with is a terrorist, they should be able to do what they can to get information about future attacks or where their leader is. If the general welfare of Americans is at stake, the necessary action must be taken. But, that being said, if there is doubt whether the person is apart of a terrorist group, I don’t think torture should be the first option used. Sufficient evidence must be present in order for a person to be a known terrorist or evidence that the person is associated with a terrorist group.
ReplyDeleteWhen speaking of the ethics of the raid of Osama Bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan, there was also much controversy. The compound had been staked out and there was sufficient evidence that Bin Laden was in the compound, I think the U.S did the right thing to not notify the Pakistani government. The U.S did not notify the Pakistani government to be sure that there was not going to be a leak and have Bin Laden go on the run again. Many countries welcomed the death of the terrorist, while only some disapproved of the way the U.S handled the situation. The United States would not want other countries to run secret missions on U.S soil, and there is where all the controversy comes from.
Overall, If law enforcement has sufficient evidence against a terrorist or someone associated with a terrorist group, they should be able to fulfill their commitment to the U.S : to protect and serve the United States of America.
Brooks Kiley
I believe that constitutional rights are a central value to the creation of the United States and must not be infringed upon. These rights are stated in the 14th Amendment made to the United States Constitution. Therefore, I believe that if law enforcement of the United States would like to detain or act upon a possible terrorist threat, they must have a PROBABLE CAUSE. However, if the law enforcement doesn't obtain substantial evidence that would hold up in court, the law enforcement should not be able to act. Though this is a more dangerous way of protecting against terrorist threats, it is a way that avoids racial profiling and protects people from having their rights infringed upon. Going along with the idea of having sufficient evidence and the importance of peoples' constitutional rights, I believe that once again if the police want to act, which in this case would be recording a phone conversation or internet trafficking, the action would first require a sufficient amount of evidence. However, an important variable must first be defined, and that would be: what is considered to be sufficient evidence?
ReplyDeleteAfter a long period of discussion of terrorism during our previous class, I would now like to discuss the other end of the spectrum because some statements made by my fellow classmates. One classmate, though I cannot recollect his name, made a statement, which made me completely rethink my views. He said something along the lines of: a citizen should always have rights, up until they infringe upon the rights of others. I never really believed that people should have their rights taken away, however, if they have chosen to ignore their morals and take away the safety of others, they do not deserve rights. Someone who takes away the rights of other does not have enough responsibility to have rights of their own. I believe it would be violating the citizens’ rights NOT to detain these people, because in the end if they follow through with their terroristic threats, then it puts the health and rights of the people in jeopardy, which is unconstitutional. However, I still stick to my belief that there must be strong evidence that would stand in court before these suspected terrorists’ rights are abridged. This is because if it comes to the point where the method of getting information is turned to torture, it can severely affect the person mentally, to the point where they have PTSD or a psychotic break. This must be considered before any actions are taken.
-Kay Humes
The 14th amendment is open to some interpretations. When it says, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” in my opinion, I interpret that as saying the government should do everything in its power to prevent citizens of the US from the rights that they are all given. If this means interrogating, or even killing one person to protect many people I think it would be worth it. Usually, someone who is suspected of a crime has done something suspicious which could lead the government or another party like the government to believe this person has either done something wrong based on evidence or a witness could also provide this information. It’s not like the person is randomly being proclaimed suspect. There is no such thing as too careful, so I believe that if someone is suspected of terrorism or anything to that degree, they should be detained and questioned at the least for the protection of the people. To not do so, and have something happen to innocent people, such as a bombing like 9/11 or the Boston Marathon bombings, would be depriving these people their rights as US citizens. However, the argument could be made that this is going to far, because in the 14th amendment it says that only states cannot deprive people their rights, which excludes those from other countries. Although it is the governments job to fulfill these right to the people, how can they do that if they don’t know what’s coming? Background checks, cell phone monitoring and any other way of tracking suspected persons is important to keep the rest of the population safe. We can not and do not follow the constitution perfectly at all times and this is a reason why.
ReplyDeleteAnna Flaherty
In today's society, terrorism is a topic that unfortunately comes up almost every day. Most recently, we have heard of an Islamic extremist group called ISIS. Their acts have been especially heinous, and I believe, it has gone to far. More needs to be done about it. That is why i feel that the US law enforcement should be able to stop and detain people they think may be thinking of becoming ISIS soldiers or people who seem to be attempting to join other terrorist organizations.I believe this should only be allowed if there is high suspicion, but not quite enough proof. I know the Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law", however the Preamble says "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America". The Preamble is an introduction to the Constitution and it says what the Constitution was made to do. The statement saying that the Constitution was made to promote the general welfare, makes me believe that that action becomes all else. It is better to infringe upon the rights on one person and protect the general well being of the American people, than to do nothing about and high suspicion and watch as they end up committing ats of terror. But like I said, the US law enforcement should only be abnle to make these arrests and detain if they have high suspicion of an individual, regardless of race. There is a difference between being suspicious do to a persons action, and racial profiling, This is why I also feel we should welcome the monitoring of cell phones and internet traffic of suspected, but not proven terrorists. Doing this can provide the evidence that causes said suspicion and can give US law enforcement better means to be suspicious, thus leading to a more accurate arrest.
ReplyDelete- Joel Mayo
I feel like these measures are very similar to those of the stop and frisk policy. While I believe it is immoral, I think it is constitutional for people to be stopped, however not detained, simply based on their ethnicity, religion, and/or race. Nothing in the world is private anymore; the internet and cellular activity can all be traced, so I don’t believe this infringes on our rights. I think the law enforcement should have better ways of attempting to identify suspects of terrorism, because by just looking at someone and making assumptions due to the way they look victimizes people by their circumstances. As an American, I guess I could say my opinion, as to how far the government should go to protect American lived, is bias. Murder and terrorism is never truly justified in my eyes, but in terms of Osama Bin Laden, specifically, not only was he a terrorist, but he was also a major symbol or terrorism; his image embodied terrorism and I believe if he wasn’t killed his ideas could have spread to other terrorist groups to a point where not only America would be a target, but other countries who may not have the means to protect its citizens. Some people may argue that it is only God’s right to decide who shall and shall not live and criticize the American government for valuing it’s citizens’ lives more than that of other countries, but it’s like Mr. Gulotta’s reference to thinking that his granddaughter is the most beautiful girl in the world, it’s not wrong, or offensive, simply bias. When someone like Bin Laden dedicates their life to making threats of genocide and carrying out in some successful and failed attempts to follow up with his life’s pursuit, I believe it is okay and constitutional to do such. He is not given the rights of an American citizen, he is not protected under our constitution, and I don’t think it was wrong to find him in another country, where some people were not his biggest fan either. As far as citizens of America who are protected, that should never even be a question, and I think that is where our law enforcement seizes to triumph. They are here to protect us, not judge us, and infringe on our freedom to liberty, religion, and speech. Until an act worthy of detainment has occurred, people should not just be accused of their personal activities because of their race or religion. Finally, even after detainment, these citizens of the United States still have their rights, not once in this process should our government lose sight of this vital point.
ReplyDelete^^ -Livi Robinson
DeleteI believe the United States should have the power to protect its citizens, especially when there could be a potential threat. However, this protection should only happen under certain circumstances. I do not think any “suspected” terrorist should be stopped just because of their race or religion. As far as privacy, I believe that the government and law enforcement already track calls and monitor Internet. This can actually be beneficial because it can allow the United States to gather enough evidence before they take wrongful action without “probable cause.” If there is evidence, not related to race/religion, that lead us to suspect someone can be a danger to the country and the people, I think an arrest is necessary. This is not taking away the rights of that person. For example, there have been cases when people are arrested just because they are on the site of a crime scene. If they are truly innocent, they will be released with all charges dropped and this goes for the suspected terrorist as well. After the person is arrested, I do not think torture is necessary. We should have enough information to the point where just having the person detained is enough. However, in the case of Osama Bin Laden, I think it was completely necessary for the United States to go about things the way they did. He was a major symbol of terrorism and served as a huge threat to our country. The rights and lives of millions of people should be valued more over one person’s. That goes for Osama Bin Laden, or any other suspected terrorist. Everyone is guaranteed the freedom of religion, speech, and press until they do something that violates those rights like disturbing the peace or causing danger. Overall, racial profiling is completely unconstitutional, but I do not think arresting suspected terrorists that could serve as a major threat isn’t.
ReplyDelete-Kristalyn Baisden