London's Daily Mail has a great piece that shows the many personalities weighing in on the Florida pastor's plan (maybe now put off?) to burn a Koran on Saturday, 9/11. Ironically he says this is not about him, but will back off his plan if he gets a personal call from the President. Really?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1310444/Obama-Terry-Jones-9-11-Koran-burning-al-Qaeda-recruitment-bonanza.html
Then, for Monday read this article by Stuart Taylor, "Rights, Liberties and Security: Recalibrating the Balance after September 11:
http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2003/winter_terrorism_taylor.aspx
Answer the following questions for discussion. You could answer in the comment section of this post, or turn in a hard copy on Monday.
(1) Should the rules for pursuing terrorists be different than those for persuing drug dealers or bank robbers? Why/Why not? What are the dangers in taking a more aggressive approach, even when it may be essential?
(2) Taylor advocates the limited use of "preventive detention" for suspected international terrorists. Can thisexteme measure be squared with the ordinary constitutional guarantees of speedy trial, due process, and protection against self-incrimination?
(3) This article was written in 2003, in your opinion has the balance of policy been weighted on the side of liberty or security in the last several years? Is this a good/bad thing?
15 comments:
They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up
-Fr. Martin Niemöller
1) The rules for pursuing terrorists should be no different that those for persuing drug dealers and bank robbers. A person cannot be charged for a murder that has yet to be committed, so why is terrorism such a special crime that it can override human rights if a murder is legally entitled to those rights. Even a person that corrupts the government (such as Illinois Governors) has the rights that such government provides. As in the quote above, the rights might be taken away to fight terrorism, but no one would speak against it because they are not terrorists. But what is Naperville decides to use the Patriot Act to tackle teenage drinking, since Guilt by Association is not working as planned, who is going to speak up then?
2) Pre-emptive justice is best descibed as arresting a person because they are likely to commit a crime. Should I be arrested for the possibility that I might drink because I am a minor? Should I be arrested for possible treason because I talk about emmigrating after high school? Pre-emptive justice is a huge leap towards tyranny.
3) I believe that the nation has been tipping the balance towards that of security, which has a tendency to be a very bad, inhumane thing. Then again, at least I might have some rights if I'm secured from attacts, instead of losing it all to a fall of government, though I might lose all liberties if the power of government over the individual were to rise.
Anagha Sundararajan
Period 3
1) The rules for pursuing terrorists, Taylor claims, should be more aggressive than those concerning drug dealers or bank robbers as terrorists cannot be apprehended after the crime has been committed but rather must be stopped as they plan to attack. He argues that only by pursuing terrorists through unwarranted wire-tapping, suspension of Miranda rights, and questioning under duress can we hope to prevent future attack. However, if this more aggressive preemptive policy is followed, not only will many innocent individuals feel the effects of it, terrorists themselves will gain the bargaining chip they need to recruit more people to their cause. Not only will this policy destroy the protection for the people against police brutality, unwarranted search and seizure, and imprisonment without just cause, terrorists will also be able to point fingers at the United States and claim that the government has failed to uphold its most fundamental values of free expression and privacy. While allowing suspected terrorists the same rights as all other criminals may not fully prevent future terror attacks and prevent suspects from being questioned without true proof, it is better to uphold the Constitutional rights of the accused as not only will the government continue to protect the Miranda rights of all people, it also sends a message to foreign terrorist organizations that America will not compromise its principles.
2) The idea of preventive detention cannot be reconciled with the rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the constitution, which guarantee a speedy trial and due process of the law as well as basic protection for the accused from delivering testimony under duress. Preventive detention allows suspected terrorists to be held for months or even years without knowledge of their crime, trial before a jury of their peers to determine guilt or innocence, and true due process of the law. Instead, many are held without access to a lawyer, ability to hear testimony against them and pressured to confess in exchange for basic information. Preventive detention may be able to stop one or two individuals from committing an act of terror but it forces dozens more to wait endlessly in prison without real proof of a crime to be given the chance to testify to defend themselves, the very problem that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments were trying to prevent.
3) In the 9 years since 9/11/2001, policy has been weighted more on the side of security than liberty. The passing of the Patriot Act gave the government the liberty to listen to phone conversations and read private messages of those suspected of terrorism or even extremist tendencies. In the years since the passing of the Patriot Act, charges of psychological pressure and even torture have been brought to light against the CIA as undercover operations to extract information have been carried out in Guantanamo Bay. Similarly, increased security in airports, ending now with full body screenings have added to the paranoia gripping the nation. Security has become so important and fear of terrorism has become so extreme that anti-Muslim sentiments ravage the country and most feel that all Muslims are terrorists, a hysteria spread by tightening security restrictions and the discovery of terror plots on American soil. Similarly, the desire for security has led to the expansion of the no-fly list and has forced the CIA to keep tabs on dozens of suspected terrorists both at home and abroad. However, this movement towards greater security has done little to prevent terror, as seen with the Underwear Bomber and the Times Square Bomb. Rather, it has spread paranoia around the country and lead to a more hostile and closed mentality throughout the United States.
1) The rules for pursuing terrorists, Taylor claims, should be more aggressive than those concerning drug dealers or bank robbers as terrorists cannot be apprehended after the crime has been committed but rather must be stopped as they plan to attack. He argues that only by pursuing terrorists through unwarranted wire-tapping, suspension of Miranda rights, and questioning under duress can we hope to prevent future attack. However, if this more aggressive preemptive policy is followed, not only will many innocent individuals feel the effects of it, terrorists themselves will gain the bargaining chip they need to recruit more people to their cause. Not only will this policy destroy the protection for the people against police brutality, unwarranted search and seizure, and imprisonment without just cause, terrorists will also be able to point fingers at the United States and claim that the government has failed to uphold its most fundamental values of free expression and privacy. While allowing suspected terrorists the same rights as all other criminals may not fully prevent future terror attacks and prevent suspects from being questioned without true proof, it is better to uphold the Constitutional rights of the accused as not only will the government continue to protect the Miranda rights of all people, it also sends a message to foreign terrorist organizations that America will not compromise its principles.
2) The idea of preventive detention cannot be reconciled with the rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the constitution, which guarantee a speedy trial and due process of the law as well as basic protection for the accused from delivering testimony under duress. Preventive detention allows suspected terrorists to be held for months or even years without knowledge of their crime, trial before a jury of their peers to determine guilt or innocence, and true due process of the law. Instead, many are held without access to a lawyer, ability to hear testimony against them and pressured to confess in exchange for basic information. Preventive detention may be able to stop one or two individuals from committing an act of terror but it forces dozens more to wait endlessly in prison without real proof of a crime to be given the chance to testify to defend themselves, the very problem that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments were trying to prevent.
3) In the 9 years since 9/11/2001, policy has been weighted more on the side of security than liberty. The passing of the Patriot Act gave the government the liberty to listen to phone conversations and read private messages of those suspected of terrorism or even extremist tendencies. In the years since the passing of the Patriot Act, charges of psychological pressure and even torture have been brought to light against the CIA as undercover operations to extract information have been carried out in Guantanamo Bay. Similarly, increased security in airports, ending now with full body screenings have added to the paranoia gripping the nation. Security has become so important and fear of terrorism has become so extreme that anti-Muslim sentiments ravage the country and most feel that all Muslims are terrorists, a hysteria spread by tightening security restrictions and the discovery of terror plots on American soil. Similarly, the desire for security has led to the expansion of the no-fly list and has forced the CIA to keep tabs on dozens of suspected terrorists both at home and abroad. However, this movement towards greater security has done little to prevent terror, as seen with the Underwear Bomber and the Times Square Bomb. Rather, it has spread paranoia around the country and lead to a more hostile and closed mentality throughout the United States.
1. The answer should be yes. plain and simply, terrorism is on a much larger scale than any bank robbery or drug deal. This is the murder of innocent people. Why would we not to try to prevent murder and hysteria if we could? Sure, we may be losing our rights to keep our privacy to ourselves, and they may be able to view or messages and listen in on our phone calls, but what do you have to risk unless your a terrorist? As long as you are making friends with good kids and staying away from terrorists then you are ok.
2. Like Taylor pointed out in the article, there are several instances where terrorists or those associated with terrorism could have been detained and possibly have prevented September 11. Maybe it isn't constitutional, but what terrorists are doing is not really that constitutional either.
3. I would say that we have been leaning more towards security. More and more people are becoming fearful of the terrorist threat, so the nation as a whole is looking for a more secure nation. I feel that, while it may be a hassle at airports etc., it makes everyone feel a lot safer.
1)The rules and restrictions for pursuing terrorists should definitely be more lenient than those for bank robbers or drug dealers. The government's ability to track down and detain known or suspected terrorists is much more important than securing the rights/protections of domestic criminals.
Lose a few, save many/sacrifice a little for the greater good?
Terrorist attacks are a large, dangerous threat. The repercussions range from 'some or many wounded, but none dead' all the way to 'mass murders and destruction of cities, etc.' Bank Robbers may be a pain for banks and the financial world, and maybe even leave a few injured, or in rare cases, even dead; but nothing compared to the scale of possible/probable damage from a terrorist attack. And most people that are drug dealers or involved with drug dealers chose to be involved with that; those that are harmed most often are harmed because of themselves. With a terrorist attack, nobody made the choice to be involved (except perhaps the terrorists, obviously) but those harmed are harmed because of the choices of others.
Taking a more aggressive approach sends a bad message to the nation and to it's enemies about U.S. freedoms and constitutional values, so perhaps this may be one of those things better left (officially) unsaid.
If there is no official statement, but the FBI/CIA implements at least so far as new, effective interrogation techniques, there will be no public message, and lives will still be saved. There have, no doubt, been many situations where those in charge in a heated situation have decided to opt for a "to hell with the rules" approach - and been very effective because of it. After all, since when has the CIA been subject to petty limitations and 'codes of war' and the like?
However, if the government wishes to have more of an ability as far as surveillance is concerned, there will need to be the appropriate legislation passed, which, like i said, could have political/ethical repercussions.
2)No. Now, that is not to say it may effective. But there is simply no way that the U.S. could adhere to constitutional guarantees and succeed with effective, if any, "preventive detention". The constitution itself demands "probable cause" and proof.
There are three options, to be blunt: Abandon preventive action, amend the constitution, or do it "under the table", anyway.
3)Well, when this article was written seemed to be the beginning or the middle of the huge security craze/boom. Since then it may have leaned a bit more towards security, but then settled out a little. It seems less have been done recently to push it more one way or the other. The Bush administration seemed to actively push for heightened national security, but the Obama administration seems less concerned.
1)The Rules/Regulations for pursuing terrorists should definitely be more lenient than those for bank robbers and drug dealers.
Lose a Few, Save Many / Sacrifice a Little for the Greater Good?
A Terrorist attack is certainly a great threat to national security/U.S. citizens than bank robbers or drug dealers.
Drug dealers are the smallest threat, and most that are dealers or get involved with dealers make that choice, and therefore if harm befalls them it's their own fault.
Bank robbers may be a pain for banks and the financial world, but they usually don't result in injuries or deaths.
The repercussions of a terrorist attack can range anywhere from 'many wounded, none dead' to 'mass murder, destruction of city'.
Therefore, it is reasonable to sacrifice some personal liberties and privacy in order to protect the masses, and our ideals.
An aggressive approach is dangerous though, in that it sends a bad message to the nation, and to it's enemies.
However, what must be done, must be done, one way or the other. Some things, like new, effective interrogation, can be implemented without the knowledge of the public (as it is unnecessary), but other things, such as the government's wish to have a greater surveillance ability, need appropriate legislation to be passed.
2)No. Simply put, there is just no way to satisfy constitutional values/guarantees and succeed in successful/useful "preventive detention".
To be blunt, there are only three options: Abandon preventive action, Amend the constitution, or act anyway, "under the table".
3)When this article was written was around the beg./mid. of the big security craze/boom. Since then it has perhaps risen a little, then leveled out/died down. The Bush administration actively pushed for security, whereas the Obama administration seems less concerned.
(1) The author of “Rights, Liberties, and Security” would have evidence obtained through wiretapping and warrant-less searches prohibited for the prosecution of non-terrorism related crimes. He claims that doing so will ensure that law enforcement agencies don’t abuse this power to go after “ordinary criminal suspects”. On this point, I have to agree with the above comment. After 9/11, we have reached a level of paranoia that leads us to treat the threat of terrorism with much greater weight than significant domestic crimes. Rapists and murderers still receive due process of law, so why should we treat potential terrorists any differently? This mindset, even if at all necessary, promotes discrimination and is ultimately a slippery slope leading to increasing governmental interference.
(2) The idea of preventive detention directly contradicts our constitutional rights, namely those guaranteeing due process of law and a speedy trial. Corresponding with my previous point, we do not detain a former felon for obtaining a gun license, nor do we dial 911 after hearing someone talk about robbing a bank. Our country was formed on the basis of equal opportunity and second chances, and taking such preventive measures hinders these ideals. While I accept that it is necessary to prevent terrorist attacks before they occur, I maintain that the government must be absolutely certain of guilt before they strip a potential terrorist of his or her rights.
(3) Since the 9/11 attacks, governmental policy has learned toward the side of security. Government at all levels has taken advantage of the terrorism scare sweeping our nation to pass legislation supposedly geared toward the safety of the people. Some measures that would otherwise have caused an uproar, as we tend to react when we find out our rights are being taken away, are being quietly accepted because the American people simply assume that the government has our best interests at heart. Thus, the scales tipping in favor of security is a negative trend that could end in an acquiescent populace, increasingly content to let the government handle their political life while their rights are gradually stripped away.
1. This question makes me think about what the difference between a gangbanger and a terrorist is. I heard somebody a while ago put it quite simply. I terrorist is politically motivated while a gangbanger is in in purely for the money. When the towers came down on that cold September morning 9 years and 1 day ago, there was never any money that exchanged hands or ransoms paid. While a gangbanger who robs a bank probably can't even tell you the difference between a Democrat and a Republican, all they want is money. So YES terrorism should be treated differently from regular domestic crime. Terrorism has the effect to defraud and destroy the very goverment is that is fighting it. While a gangbanger is just looking to make some money. Bottom line terrorism is serious and needs to be treated differently.
2. I think their are cases where preventive detention are necessary. Domesticaly you can look at laws that forbid being drunk in public or even DUI. When somebody is arrested for these crimes they have not yet commited a crime. They are arrested because if your drunk and have a car, you will probably do something stupid and that must be prevented. The same way somebody who downloads instructions on making homemade bombs and then buys the supplies at hardware store should be arrested, they are probably up to something, and it will take months to get the courts to issue a warrant. So law enforcement must move before somebody who will commit crime does so.
3. I think the spectrum has remained fairly balanced. I think we certainly have taken a step closer to security. But that the goverment has done a inefficient job at handling it. They have turned Intelligence and Homeland Security into a billion dollar industry also incompassing the private sector. They think that throwing money at issues solves it. They need to start thinking about efficiency in their security.
1. I don't believe that the rules for pursuing terrorists should be any different. The reason is because this is a very slippery slope. If we start agressively targeting potential terrorists we'll probably get a couple of guilty terrorists and probably get alot more innocent people. Some people think it is worth abandoning our countries principles and acting like the brutal regimes we so strongly oppose to ensure our safety. I do not.
2. Technically this 'preventative detention' could be used on suspected international terrorists in some cases. For one, the constitution also talks about "ensuring domestic tranquility" and "providing for the common defense" both of which this detaining can do. Also, the constitution only guarantees these rights to its citizens, so technically non citizens are not guaranteed the protection under the fourth amendment.
3. I think in the past seven years the balance has shifted more towards security. As the 'war on terror' has heated up more legislature has been passed giving the government power to bypass some rights in the name of national defense. One obvious (and annoying) example is the ever increasing airport security. This is not necessarily a good or a bad thing; there are good aspects and bad aspects to it. One good thing is that this is supposedly helping to catch more potential terrorists and prevent attacks i.e. the failed detroit christmas bombing attempt. However this is also bad as any good comes at the cost of personal liberties (part of what makes america so great) and the term 'good' is used loosely. In a recent test most tsa employees failed to detect the 'bombs' which shows that even with the violation of rights and increased security the only thing that is really safer is americas peace of mind.
Trisha Rao
Period 3
1) I think terrorism is a much larger, and much more dangerous threat than drug dealing and bank robberies. I mean, in drug deals the worst that happens is that people get high on illegal substances, and yes, they could die, but it's what they bring on themselves. Similarly, with bank robberies, usually the robbers only hold people hostage, but murder never becomes a part of the equation. Terrorism is basically the slaughter of thousands of innocent people out of hate. The problem with a more aggressive approach is that it may provoke terrorist groups to recruit more and to hate more, thus ensuing more terrorism.
2) I disagree with what Taylor thinks, because I believe that preventive detention is a violation of a person's rights. You shouldn't be incarcerated for what you might, possibly do. And no one has the right to hold you hostage when you haven't done anything wrong.
3) Most of it has been weighted in security. Once air travel was simple and convenient, and now my mother has to rush to Wal-Mart to buy little 3-ounce containers so we can take liquids with us. It can be dangerous, increasing security everywhere. I think the country is becoming more and more paranoid, and that could pose a threat later on.
1)I believe that terrorists should not at all have any different treatment under the law. The only difference between a murderer and a terrorist is the desire to cause fear in the latter. By making terrorist a special, ill defined type of criminal, the potential is opened for any person to become a terrorist.
2)It most definitely can not. Punishing thoughtcrime would fly directly in the face in the rights of our constitution.
3)In my opinion, the trend has continued to move towards security, although this has slowed since Obama took office. However, it has not stopped at all, which is clear to see from the massive intelligence bureaucracy that has unfolded in the light of the War on Terror. This is a bad thing in my mind, as if the nation continues the slide into security then the more likely it is that something objectionable in your history will become noticeable to security agencies. This will then result in more personal loss of liberties for you, whether you are put on the no-fly list or outright detained in the name of protection.
(1) Should the rules for pursuing terrorists be different than those for persuing drug dealers or bank robbers? Why/Why not? What are the dangers in taking a more aggressive approach, even when it may be essential?
Yes, they should because terrorists endanger the lives of others while bank robbers and drug dealers do not affect the lives of many. The problem with this approach is that it has sometimes caused criminals to be born and it can also falsify answers when torture is put into play.
(2) Taylor advocates the limited use of "preventive detention" for suspected international terrorists. Can this extreme measure be squared with the ordinary constitutional guarantees of speedy trial, due process, and protection against self-incrimination?
Terrorists are harder to deal with than many others because they normally do not originate from this country, but in order to save the lives of many, drastic measures must be taken but not at the expense of civilian rights.
(3) This article was written in 2003, in your opinion has the balance of policy been weighted on the side of liberty or security in the last several years? Is this a good/bad thing?
I think now that Sept. 11 has passed 9 years ago, people are leaning more towards liberty than they did then, but there is still a fear of terrorist threats and that's not good for anyone.
1. The rules are obviously much different from pursuing terrorists than pursuing drug dealers and criminals. Although, all afforementioned peoples are detrimental to society and generally dangerous to the greater good, there are certain ways to handle each. Cracking down on drug dealers and bank robbers is much simpler because there are laws laid out on the process they must go through (if they are breaking a law, they must be informed of their crime and follow the due process of law from there). However, dealing with terrorists is much less simpler. If we are overly aggressive then America could seem harsh, or intolerant towards other races and religions, thereby causing further tension and hatred between nationalities and peoples. In contrast, if we are too soft in combatting terrorism then we may be encouraging extremists to attack based on their beliefs that we may be weak.
2. I believe that preventive detention is not an American way of preventing terrorism. Preventive detention does not allow for 5th and 6th amendment rights of the citizens, in fact it goes directly against them, since a suspected criminal cannot be informed of a crime that they have not yet committed.
3. I think that in the past seven years, our government has become more security than liberty. Simply put the response to the attacks on September 11th were swift and firm, and set a standard for governing over the next few years. Yet, this is how America has always been; when national crisis strikes, the President attains more power, and the people lose certain abilities for a short period of time. Just as Taylor states in the first lines of his article, "when danger increases, liberties shrink". For Americans the attacks on 9/11, quickly turned into a nationalistic frenzy in which people were willing to give up certain rights to attain justice for the wrongs they had suffered and witnessed (as it always is and has been during wartime).
michael kors
adidas stan smith women
jordan shoes
supreme
nike air force
ferragamo belt
kevin durant shoes
canada goose
kyrie 3
vapormax
their website replica bags from china my link dolabuy replica try here gucci replica handbags
Post a Comment