Summer '22 - Intro to American Government & Politics

2. There is not an amendment in the constitution specifically for the right to privacy. However, this right is implied in several amendments. One example is the 4th amendment, which prohibits unwarranted searches and seizures. Another example is the 1st amendment, which guarantees that people can maintain their personal opinions and religious and political beliefs. 

3. I do think that terrorism suspects should still be tried in civilian court. I believe that anyone who is being persecuted for a crime by the U.S. government is entitled to its legal protections. The right to a fair trial is included in the constitution based on certain principles and beliefs about how human beings in general should be treated. Therefore, there should be no exceptions based on citizenship. 

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.

2. We do not have the right to privacy written in any amendment specifically, but many of our amendments, such as the 4th and 14th Amendments touch on or imply such. The 4th amendment says that our property, person, papers, etc. cannot be searched or seized without probable cause or suspicions. 

3. Sadly, terrorism has become a large fear of concern for countries all over the world. With 9/11 sparking the war on terrorism in America, we have changed our society and our government to protect the people from such incidents. Since Hamdan was employed by a large US threat during war times, making him a prisoner of war, he was unable to be treated in a fair and just manner due to the background of the situation. Since he is not a US citizen, it was not mandatory for him to have the same rights that are stated in the constituion of a speedy trial. I believe that if we were to do civilian courts, with a random selection of jurors, it would be unfair to him. He could face discrimination due to the fear of terrorism in America, but also most American civilians do not know much of the indepth laws and regulations between military and war crimes. I feel that military tribunals would be more appropriate for it is more so their area of expertice. Also if it was a civilian trial, he would likely be given a public defender who may not have as much knowledge on these events. Through all of this, I do believe it was wrong for us to detain him for so many years and he deserved a speedy trial rather than be a prisoner without proven guilty, its better to leave these kind of issues to the military. 

1. Freedom of speech is an essential right, as Douglas proclaimed. Restricting that right is the most dangerous because it essentially strips Americans of their ability to think and vocalize different viewpoints freely. The inability to explore a variety of perspectives would hinder the progress and freedom granted in current American society. America is known for its diversity which would be harmed by implementing restrictions upon individuals’ ability to vocalize their perspectives. 

2. While the constitution does not outright state a right to privacy, several amendments indicate privacy is important and should be granted to all. For example, the first amendment states freedom to choose religion, the fifth amendment highlights the right of protection against self-incrimination, and the fourteenth amendment bans states from creating laws that impact someone’s autonomy, which is provided in the other amendments as freedom of speech. Therefore the right to privacy comes from the protections listed in the amendments within the constitution. 

3. Non-citizen prisoners should not be entitled to the fundamental legal protections in the constitution because they are not citizens. Americans can’t travel to other countries and be granted the same rights, so neither should non-citizens in America. Terrorism suspects should not be tried in civilian courts because they tried to cause harm to the entire country rather than doing something with less harmful and deadly consequences, such as petty theft. They are not only a threat to their community but the whole country; therefore, they should face harsher consequences.

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. 

2- The Supreme Court did not specifically recognize the existence of the “right of privacy” until 1965. However, funny enough this constitutional right is not mentioned in the Constitution. Amendment nine is the strongest identifier of the “right to privacy”. This amendment led way to the identification of rights not specifically identified in the constitution. Another example to privacy that is not spelled out specifically is the fourth amendment: illegal searches and seizures. This amendment basically says that an individual’s security in several aspects shall not be violated unless there is a probable cause supported by the Oath.

3- I think every person whether they are an American citizen or not should be treated with respect. However, I believe that if an individual who is not a citizen of the USA acts in a malicious manner that puts American citizens at risk, then they should not be tried in the civilian court. A citizen of the United States is protected by the constitution though and therefore I believe should be tried in a civilian court. I believe this because they are innocent until proven guilty.

1. I agree with Justice Douglas’s thoughts on free speech. Free speech is the most important founding principle of our country and without it our democracy would not be able to properly function. Without the ability for individuals to freely express their thoughts and ideas, the government would control every aspect of citizens’ lives. Free speech is the single most important value that our democracy was founded on and any restrictions of it, will ultimately lead to a failure of our system of government as we know it. 

2. I believe that privacy can be viewed as being granted by the U.S. constitution. In the fourth amendment, Americans’ privacy is protected by forbidding any unreasonable searches and seizures. In addition, the ninth amendment states there are rights for individuals past the constitution. The tenth amendment could also be interpreted, as it gives all other rights to the states, which depending on the particular state government, could grant a right of privacy to individuals. 

3. In terms of what the U.S. government being justified, I do not personally think it was right to hold him for that long, however, I think that it also was not necessarily unconstitutional. As he was not a U.S. citizen, he was not deprived of any rights the U.S. Constitution gives him, so I do not think he has any rights protected by the U.S. constitution and therefore should not be tried in a civil court.

2. Privacy is one of the rights granted in the U.S. Constitution even though it is not explicitly stated. It comes from the 14th amendment with the right to liberty, the 9th amendment that mentions rights that might exist beyond the Constitution, and the 4th amendment rights that prevent unlawful search and seizure and also rights against quartering. Through cases like Roe V. Wade and Griswold V. Connecticut the idea of privacy has expanded and been legitimized.

3. Terrorism suspects' civil liberties should be protected and they should be tried in civilian courts. But only if they are American citizens. My reasoning for this is due process. I think that they are still innocent until proven guilty and should be treated as such. Everyone that is an American citizen deserves a fair trial regardless of the accusations against them. However, if they are not American citizens they are not protected by the U.S. constitution. They are still protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights so no human rights violations against them should occur. 

1. I agree that we should not restrict freedom of speech, but we should also not restrict consequences to our actions. I feel like a lot of people think our country is restricting freedom of speech more now due to political correctness and cancel culture, but no one is saying anyone “cannot” say something, only that you shouldn’t and that there will be consequences for doing so. I believe all Americans should have the right to critique our government without fearing for their safety or repercussions from politicians, but the problem arises when some people insist on the right to express hate. American’s have the right to share nonviolent hate, but risk losing their jobs, peers, or respect from doing so. This is not a violation of freedom of speech but is a consequence of sharing one’s personal views.

2. The right to privacy directly relates to our right to liberty. Liberty and independence allow for American citizens to be free from oppressive restrictions such as invasion of privacy. The ninth amendment protects rights not specifically outlined in the Constitution, like privacy. Privacy is also ensured in the fourth amendment that prevent unwarranted search and seizures. I understand that the government may think invading innocent people’s privacy in order to prevent one guilty person from acting may feel worth it, but invading those innocent’s people privacy is un-American and a violation of our freedoms.

3. Terrorism suspects are still humans, and our country does believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty, so suspects should still be treated humanely. However, dependent on the severity of terrorism, civilian trials may not be impartial nor equipped to handle trials as complex and consequential. American citizens suspected of terrorism trials should strive to be held in civilian courts, as the suspect is a civilian, but there will be extremes and exceptions. Suspects who are not Americans are still people often with families who may still be completely innocent, but they do not have the American right to due process, so civilian court may be much more complicated.

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. Although we do have the right and restriction of free thought and freedom of speech, It could lead to a dangerous situation. I agree with Justice William O. Douglas statement because even though we have the freedom to think and speak freely, how society's culture today somethings are not politically correct to say. This could be anywhere from discrepancies of religion, race, and political views. Having these discrepancies with others can cause a dangerous fight. Another big example that I can think of is the cancel culture. Famous people are followed and always watched. One bad statement could be made and they could be canceled and lose an enormous amount. Overall, everyone is always watched even if you don’t know. Having the freedom of speech and free thought is amazing but also can cause problems throughout life. 

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 privacy is not specifically spelled out, the U.S. The Constitution gives privacy rights in various amendments. For example the search without warrant without probable cause. This means that law enforcements can not search private property/situations without probable cause that something happened to be granted a warrant. Another one is the first amendment where you have privacy of beliefs like religion, petitions, and other personal rights. Last example is the states can not deprive a citizen of life, liberty, or process without due process of the law. To conclude, the U.S. does not spell out the right of privacy but there are many laws and amendments that connect to the right of privacy. 
   

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? I believe if they are terrorizing and a dangerous person to citizens of the United States that they should not be tried in civilian courts. They are a danger to the country and should not be given an easier trial to the acts that they were a part of or did. You do not have to the terrorizing to not be considered in these rules. If you have any part of it such as creating the ammunition, doing the act, or being a part of the plan, you should all be tried in the military tribunals for the acts they committed. They all were a part of the same dangerous act and should be prosecuted at the greatest extent for the act that they did.