Write a reflective response (4-5 sentences each) to each of the three prompts below.
1. Former
Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas once said, "Restriction of free
thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one
un-American act that could most easily defeat us." Reflect on this
statement and whether or not you agree or disagree with Justice Douglas.
2. The right to privacy has been behind some of the most controversial Supreme Court decisions of the last century. Is privacy one of the rights granted in the U.S. Constitution even though it is not specifically spelled out? If it's not spelled out, where does this right come from?
3. Salim Hamdan, a driver employed by Osama bin Laden, spent more than seven years in United States custody because he was suspected of terrorist activities. Hamdan was eventually reunited with his family on January 8, 2009, after a more than seven year long detention. Human rights organizations continue to criticize the U.S. government for its treatment of Hamdan and other non-citizen prisoners, asserting that everyone is entitled to the fundamental legal protections provided by the U.S. Constitution. Should terrorism suspects be tried in civilian courts (Rather than military tribunals) so that their civil liberties can be protected by the U.S. Constitution?
To add your reply, click "add a new discussion topic," type your response to each of the questions, and then make sure to click "post to forum." Then, check out some of your fellow classmate's responses and make sure to reply (as discussed in the syllabus) to at least two of your classmates' responses before 6/11.
2. I think that the right to privacy is not specifically spelled out in the constitution, but I think that it is understood. The Constitution prohibits unwarranted search and seizure which is protecting privacy in a sense. The rise of technology causes problems that were not prevalent to the founding fathers, so I think that issues like data tracking and technology privacy should be written out or decided by the Supreme Court. I think that the constitution protects all of the privacies that citizens had back when the Constitution was written which means that all new issues of privacy should be addressed as well. I think that protection of privacy comes from the 4th amendment, but it also comes from the individual case interpretation by the Supreme Court.
3. Although I don't particularly think it was right that they held him for that long, I also don't support his actions. The sixth amendment ensures the right to a speedy trial, however it does not say if this applies only for us citizens or for everyone. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment defines a US citizen and says that US citizens cannot be deprived from their rights. The 14th amendment does not say that anyone who isn't a US citizen has these rights, so this issue is a gray area in the constitution. In times of War, and with prisoners of war, the executive branch has authority. I think that the US was not necessarily justified in keeping the prisoner for 7 years, however I do not think that it is unconstitutional. Terrorism did happen on US soil, so that may make him subject to the US constitution, but I don't necessarily think that it gives him all of the rights and freedoms. I do not think that terrorists should be tried in civilian courts because the nature of their crime is not civilian.