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.
- Justice William O. Douglas of the United States Supreme Court is correct. First of all free speech and free thought serve as the foundation for the rest of our civic freedoms. The removal of these rights might jeopardize the rest of our civil liberties as outlined in the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment. Also, whether you believe the United States has always been effective in defending the first amendment, i think without it would not be able to grow and challenge each other and we would fall quickly into a dictatorship.
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?
- Even though it is not officially stated, privacy is one of the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. It derives from the 14th amendment's right to liberty, the 9th amendment's statement of rights that may exist outside of the Constitution, and the 4th amendment's prohibitions on unreasonable search and seizure, without these liberties granted towards us it would be impossible to be free. while privacy is limited and controlled within certain aspects it is like everything within a harmonic society that requires check and balances.
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?
- The civil freedoms of terrorist suspects should be preserved, and they should be taken to a trial of the people they attacked. Regardless of the charges leveled against them, every American citizen is entitled to a fair trial. If they are not citizens of the United States, however, they are not protected by the constitution. but must still remain humane do to civil liberties of human rights, because if you start to treat them barbarically than it makes you no better and we must lead by example as hard as it may seem to do.