I feel that due process is important in all cases. that is another part of the constitution that gives people rights. if this wasn't important in all cases, then the amendments might as well not be important either. In this case however, i feel it is fair to keep Lakmar Boumediene detained since he plotted an attack against the US embassy. This shows that he can be a danger to the people around him, and this usually takes precedence. This doesn't mean that his due process rights are being violated, it just means that national security is more important. Just like if a mass murderer was caught, they wouldn't let him free on bail. And this doesn't get disputed so i don't see why this case is.
due process rights are important or why else would they have made them? In this case he is not a us citizen he is an Algrian who emigrated to Bosnia. even if he was at the us embassy he is still not a us citizen enless he has dual citizenship. he was handed over to the us military but that still doesn't make him a us citizen. why should due process rights be eligable to someone who is not a citizen.
i agree with what pam said. due process is very important and with out it, the other amendments would make much sense. if you can't have life or liberty, then the amendment would become useless to you. since the guy was a threat, he should be kept confined. if he was just walking down the street and we arrested him, then we would have a problem.
Is it more important to protect the rights of individuals, or the society? I think that it is more important to protect society. Since he was a threat to the nation I think that it was right to deny him of his rights in order to protect society from a possible threat. Boumendiene was a proven threat and needed to be detained. I think that even if there is a possibility that there is a threat there the rights of an individual can be "revoked" for a period of time in order to protect society. Society is made up of individuals, so by protecting society you a only hurting a few people to protect the rest.
I think that due process should be followed in all cases brought to the US courts. It's argued that Boumediene isn't a citizen of the United States- but he's being detained by the justice system of the United States. Why should he be denied the rights of a US citizen who is arrested on the same charges? If you're going to say that people who aren't citizens of the United States can be arrested and detained by the United States, why would you deny them the rights of anyone else in the same position? You can't go halfway on the justice system.
I think that in this case the persons rights to due process is more important than national security because they should try him and see what the judge decides, he has done what they say he did and they have proof he did it then it will be ruled in the country's favor.
I agree with Gabe completely in this situation. By denying this one man rights it potentially saves hundreds of lives. Instead of letting him have another possible chance of terrorism we and should be willing to sacrifice a few peoples rights. This reminds me of the case New Jersey v. T.L.O because they will give up TLO's rights for the safety of the school. I feel due process is necessary in most situations but here the crimes committed are too dangerous for out society.
9 comments:
I feel that due process is important in all cases. that is another part of the constitution that gives people rights. if this wasn't important in all cases, then the amendments might as well not be important either. In this case however, i feel it is fair to keep Lakmar Boumediene detained since he plotted an attack against the US embassy. This shows that he can be a danger to the people around him, and this usually takes precedence. This doesn't mean that his due process rights are being violated, it just means that national security is more important. Just like if a mass murderer was caught, they wouldn't let him free on bail. And this doesn't get disputed so i don't see why this case is.
due process rights are important or why else would they have made them? In this case he is not a us citizen he is an Algrian who emigrated to Bosnia. even if he was at the us embassy he is still not a us citizen enless he has dual citizenship. he was handed over to the us military but that still doesn't make him a us citizen. why should due process rights be eligable to someone who is not a citizen.
i agree with what pam said. due process is very important and with out it, the other amendments would make much sense. if you can't have life or liberty, then the amendment would become useless to you. since the guy was a threat, he should be kept confined. if he was just walking down the street and we arrested him, then we would have a problem.
Is it more important to protect the rights of individuals, or the society? I think that it is more important to protect society. Since he was a threat to the nation I think that it was right to deny him of his rights in order to protect society from a possible threat. Boumendiene was a proven threat and needed to be detained. I think that even if there is a possibility that there is a threat there the rights of an individual can be "revoked" for a period of time in order to protect society. Society is made up of individuals, so by protecting society you a only hurting a few people to protect the rest.
I think that due process should be followed in all cases brought to the US courts. It's argued that Boumediene isn't a citizen of the United States- but he's being detained by the justice system of the United States. Why should he be denied the rights of a US citizen who is arrested on the same charges? If you're going to say that people who aren't citizens of the United States can be arrested and detained by the United States, why would you deny them the rights of anyone else in the same position? You can't go halfway on the justice system.
I think that in this case the persons rights to due process is more important than national security because they should try him and see what the judge decides, he has done what they say he did and they have proof he did it then it will be ruled in the country's favor.
I agree with Gabe completely in this situation. By denying this one man rights it potentially saves hundreds of lives. Instead of letting him have another possible chance of terrorism we and should be willing to sacrifice a few peoples rights.
This reminds me of the case New Jersey v. T.L.O because they will give up TLO's rights for the safety of the school.
I feel due process is necessary in most situations but here the crimes committed are too dangerous for out society.
Post a Comment