Do you think the United States should alter its constitutional rights.....?

Question

when dealing with possible terrorist suspects?
My reasoning in favor of this alteration is that the US has never dealt with terrorism at this capacity and this level. I believe (as a conservative and a crime control activist) that the rights of suspects that have been charged or could possibly be charged should be limited and restricted.
What are your thoughts on this? Should terrorist suspects have the same rights as you and I in our Criminal Justice system both domestically and internationally?

Answer 1

If you are speaking of altering the Constitution, it is not the problem. If you are referring to activist judges that poorly interpret the Constitution, you are on the right track.

They also don't understand why children of illegals should not be automatically citizens. They have also misinterpreted Eminent Domain, Affirmative Action, and the 10th Amendment.

Answer 2

There are many great answers to this question already, especially from Linda L, Cantcu and Kenmacusa. My answer to your question is: No. If the government truly cared about fighting terrorism, they would not leave our borders wide open and unprotected. When you stop to think about it, this really makes no sense. If you’re fighting a “War on Terror”, common sense would tell you that the first order of business would be to secure the borders. But they don’t secure the borders. Consequently, I am against altering the Constitution in any way, especially on the basis of terrorism.

The United States Constitution is precious, mostly because it contains the Bill of Rights. The Constitution that was first planned back in 1787 was actually intended to extract power away from individual states and the people, and to ultimately converge all governmental power at the federal level. It was the ordinary citizens and people like Patrick Henry at that time that stopped this from happening. They saw through the façade of the original Constitution and realized that it would eventually deprive all of us of our rights. Therefore, they stood up against the tyranny and demanded that the Constitution provide some guarantees to ensure that the inalienable rights of the people would be protected from the impending unpredictable acts of the federal government. They demanded the Bill of Rights inclusion. Being aware that they were defeated and unable to brainwash the indignant, outraged citizenry, the politicians reluctantly yielded and made the change. (It’s very similar to what just recently happened with Bush’s Immigration Bill that folded due to the strong opposition from citizens.)

“The Patriot Act” is the opposite of what it says it is. It violates several of the amendments in the Bill of Rights. It was rushed through Congress with little debate and passed by people who didn’t even read it. It was as thick as a phone book (hundreds of pages long)! It was clearly written before 9/11. They were only able to pass it because it was during a time of great fear, confusion and anger for the general population, which was precisely their goal.

Needless to say, I am against anything that changes what our patriotic forefathers fought so hard for in the past.

Answer 3

During my time in the protective service industry, I have seen more law abiding citizens get shafted. because the criminals seem to have more rights than everyone else. When the police look at it as everyone is guilty, they just have to find out what they are guilty of. This is a problem that needs to be addressed. NO our constitutional rights should not be changed, but they should be restricted from criminals and immigrants who are not citizens of this country that so many have fought and died for. To change the Constitution would be saying what were all those people fighting for anyway. Terrorism is a war and we fight wars everyday, but our rights as free men and women should never be infringed upon.

Answer 4

First of all we have Constitutional guaranteed Rights unalienable from God not from the Constitution or government. Terrorism is perpetrated by governments or those that have agendas in power positions in governments. A careful study of the History of Terror events would show this to be fact. The War on Terrorism is a war on the Bill of Rights and We the People to have sovereign Nation by those that represent the New World Order for a One World government controlled by them. All of the legislation has attempted to diminish our freedoms and none of it has protected our Rights. The borders have not been closed and an invasion of Illegal Aliens has been the result. Those like the Council on Foreign Relations desire no borders and merger of the USA with Mexico and Canada and the end to Constitutional Republic form of limited government. That like the EU would lead next to a merger of all Unions the NAU, EU, Asian Union into a socialist One World elite controlled government much like that of present day Communist China. No terrorist suspects have been found to be guilty of terrorism and Usama Bin Laden is not wanted by FBI for 9/11/2001 events or the false flag black operation that was caused to formant perpetual war in the middle east and the Central Asia Caspian Sea Oil fields for their control.

Answer 5

I think that we've managed to stay on top of some of these terrorists, we already have wire taps, camera surveilance and they're being followed. If we had secure borders these a**es would not have the ability to come and go with ease. How about working on that? In our country you are supposed to be innocent until being proved gulity. The fact that the terrorists are here is law breaking enough for me. What do we have to do to get D.C. to recognize that illegal aliens are the detriment of this country. And open borders are there for the picking. If they are citizens being watched for covert activity, how do you change a law for some and not for others. This is a democracy. Let's be sure of who is here than we'll have a chance to control them. Terrorists should have no rights at all!

Answer 6

Not if they aren't American citizens. The Constitution doesn't apply to foreigners. If they come here to kill us, they shouldn't have the right to hide behind the protection of our laws. Our ancestors understood this. The concept of the "outlaw" goes back to ancient Anglo-Saxon law. It hasn't been used in this country since the wild west was tamed, but maybe it's time to consider bringing it back. Back then, people who totally disregarded the law time and again could be declaired "outlaws" -- literally outside the protection of the law. Anyone could legally kill an outlaw without fear of retribution. To pacify the liberals among them, our ancestors put a higher bounty on a live outlaw than a dead one, knowing full well that most bounty hunters would take the easy road to riches and bring them in dead, which also saved the state the cost of a trial. Yeah, the more I think about it, the better I like it. What do you think?

Answer 7

no we shouldn't.

When you alter the constitution to go against all citizens even those that aren't supposed to be labelled terrorists, there is a problem. When peace organizations are branded as terrorists in order to infringe on their rights, yes there is a problem.

Don't be fooled. Notice how anything passed after wars were supposed to be temporary like income tax became permanent?

Patriot Act was supposed to be temporary too. Guess who wanted to make it permanent? Are you endorsing someone lying to you and telling you something is going to be temporary but then they go against their word? Don't you think it's time for us to have someone who won't use panic in order to pass laws that go against our constitution?

No, the constutution should not be altered. If that happens, we will become just like the country our forefathers struggled against. Then we lose our values forever.

Answer 8

Well, the rub is whether you consider them criminals or enemy agents. If you call them criminals, they you have to afford them all the rights.

But if they're considered enemy agents (i.e. spies or sabateurs), during a time of war, they are definitely less likely to be given full Constitutional rights, and the precedents agree with that.

For one, the evidence-gathering techniques used to find them may be secret, and cannot be revealed in public, or to the suspect, lest it undo our security capabilities.

But I don't consider terrorists to be criminals - they are illegal combatants and should be treated as such. Which means they are not eligible to the protections and rights that criminal suspects receive.

Answer 9

Yea, lets start stripping our Constitution. The minute we do that they win!

Under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, WHICH IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL allows George Bush or the Secretary of Defense to name any person, or group of people as terrorist, even if US Citizens and they aren't terrorists.

When they pick you up you have already lost habeas corpus, so they can hold you forever and never charge you, You do not have the right to be indicted, you do not have the right to have access to a civilian court, you do not have the right to a trial by the jury of your peers.

You have the right to a military tribunal and if sentenced to death you do not have the right to appeal it to the US Supreme Court! Why don't you go to the White House Web page and see that they have funded 600 concentration camps. You think they are for illegals?

I don't how any person in this country would so cavalierly give up their rights bought and paid for by the blood of millions!

TOLD YOU SO! In the 2-1 decision, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel found that the federal Military Commissions Act doesn't strip Ali al-Marri, a legal U.S. resident, of his constitutional rights to challenge his accusers in court.

It ruled the government must allow al-Marri to be released from military detention.

He is currently the only U.S. resident held as an enemy combatant within the U.S.

Jose Padilla, another U.S. citizen, was held as an enemy combatant in a Navy brig for 3 1/2 years before he was hastily added to an existing case in Miami in November 2005, a few days before a U.S. Supreme Court deadline for Bush administration briefs on the question of the president's powers to continue holding him in military prison without charge.

Al-Marri has been held in solitary confinement in the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., since June 2003. The Qatar native has been detained since his December 2001 arrest at his home in Peoria, Ill., where he moved with his wife and five children a day before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to study for a master's degree at Bradley University.

Al-Marri's lawyers argued that the Military Commissions Act, passed last fall to establish military trials after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, doesn't repeal the writ of habeas corpus — defendants' traditional right to challenge their detention.

Answer 10

I have no idea where you stand on the issue but I gave you a star for the question. You received such thoughtful and well expressed answers I really have nothing more to add except I wish we could give a star for great answerrs! I am glad I don't have to pick the best one!