The Military Order on Detention, Treatment and Trial of Certain Non-citizens Essay Example

the right to legal counsel. These detentions are unparalleled in our nation's dedication to upholding the rule of law since no previous president has ever possessed unilateral detention powers even during times of war. The president's authority solely from war was inadequate justification for these detentions that blatantly disregarded due process' essential principle.

Granting unilateral and unlimited executive power to detain could have had serious negative consequences for our country, as it put detainees' rights at risk and showed a lack of recognition for the law. However, outside of the United States, where armed combat was taking place in Afghanistan and detainees like Hamdi were initially held, the president possessed authority to prosecute the war on terror. This authority, along with the president's role in foreign affairs, was appropriate in this specific instance.

However, within the United States where due process is practiced, President Bush's actions were unjustified. Although he had executive authority to launch military campaigns against Iraq and al Qaeda, this did not give him unlimited power to act within his own country. Core due process rights should not have been overridden in pursuit of the 'war on terror'. It is important to note that being Commander-in-Chief of every person within the United States was not explicitly stated in the constitution.

During emergencies, such as terrorism cases, the due process can be flexible to enable immediate action by the executive. However, when a crisis is declared, it is essential for the courts to carefully evaluate it. Merely holding suspected terrorists without proper justification is insufficient grounds for continued imprisonment. Criminal laws provide sufficient means to prosecute these suspects and apply severe penalties, including capital punishment.

The legitimacy

of the detentions was further weakened because Congress did not authorize them. However, this differs from other situations where the President's exercise of "war power" has been challenged. In those cases, the courts have sought authorization from Congress, as seen in the Quirin case. President Bush carried out indefinite detentions without congressional authorization. Nonetheless, he had been authorized by the Joint Resolution of September 2001 to use necessary but appropriate force against al Qaeda through the United States Armed Forces. This does not imply that basic due process rights within the country were suspended in these matters; a distinction was made concerning the use of military force outside the United States.

The USA Patriot Act, which was passed by President Bush, demonstrated his authority to disregard the civil rights of enemy combatants. The act expanded executive power in order to combat terrorism and Congress set a limit of seven days on detaining any alien suspected of terrorism. However, this violated 18 U.S.C ; 4001(a), which prohibits detaining citizens without congressional authorization.

These discussions highlighted the complexity of these issues and emphasized the importance of ensuring national security through all available means. While combating terrorism is crucial, we must not overlook or dismiss fundamental principles like due process rights. Failing to uphold these values could have long-term consequences for our constitutional ideals.

As a well-known Supreme Court Justice once said, "the Constitution is not a suicide pact." Instead of being solely applicable during times of peace, it serves as guidance and support for us. We should not abandon our constitutional values in response to acts of terrorism, similar to what President Bush did.

Effectively combating terrorism in our country can

be achieved without sacrificing our fundamental principles of due process, which are the foundation of our government system based on the rule of law. Upholding the rule of law does not compromise our national security; on the contrary, disregarding it endangers our national identity.

References

1. Lee, T. (2003). American Courts-Martial for Enemy War Crimes. U. Balt. L. Rev., 33, 49.