I Affirm: Resolved: The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same due process protections

it grants to citizens. I value morality as implied by the resolution. Morality is only a relevant value if it can prioritize between conflicting claims. The strongest moral claim is to be guaranteed your individual human rights as a free citizen of the world. Thus, the criterion is maximizing utility for non-United States-citizens accused of terrorism. This criterion is preferable because: Policy-making must be consequential since inviolable constraints make it impossible to weigh the tradeoffs inherent to decisions involving opportunity costs, as some constraint will always be violated. Thus, even if there are some problems with consequentialism, we should still prefer it to deontology since states could not act under inviolable side constraints. Contention 1: Due process is necessary for morality and justice.
Amos N. Guiora writes Professor of Law, S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah; author of Freedom from Religion: Rights and National Security (2009).
Tyler

Due process is the essence of a proper judicial process; denial of due process, whether in interrogation or trial, violates both the Constitution and moral norms. Denying suspects and defendants due process protections results in counterterrorism measures antithetical to the essence of democracies. While threats posed by terrorism must not be ignored, there is extraordinary danger in failing to carefully distinguish between real and perceived threats. Casting an extraordinarily wide net results in denying the individual rights; similarly, there is no guarantee that such an approach contributes to effective operational counterterrorism. Extending constitutional privileges and protections to noncitizens does not threaten the nation-state; rather, it illustrates the already slippery slope. In proposing that due process be an inherent aspect of counterterrorism, I am in full accordance with Judge Bates holding. The time has come to implement his words in spirit and law alike; habeas hearings are an important beginning but do not ensure adjudication of individual accountability. Determining innocence or guilt is essential to effective counterterrorism predicated on the rule of law. Granting suspects accused of terrorism due process is an essential tenet of upholding morality and justice. The judicial system is, by definition, impartial, while military tribunals are not. Fairness is an essential part of morality, and morality can not be upheld without extending the opportunity for a fair trial to all persons accused of crimes against the United States. The only way to ensure a fair trial is through due process. Thus, the only way to uphold morality and maximize justice, is to extend due process to the accused terrorists.

Contention 2: Federal courts have the ability to deal with trials quickly and efficiently. The underwear bombers trial and sentencing took place within 2 years.
Monica Davey writes 11 [leading political correspondent for New York Times, Would-Be Plane Bomber Pleads Guilty,
Ending Trial, October 2011]Tejas

The trial of a man accused of trying to blow up a commercial airliner with a bomb sewed into his underwear ended Wednesday, just a day after it had begun, when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the accused underwear bomber, abruptly announced that he would plead guilty to all of the federal counts against him. Prosecutors and federal agents seemed stunned, if pleased, and declared that the plea was evidence that the American court system, as opposed to a military tribunal, could bring a suitable outcome to a terrorism case. Anthony Chambers, a legal adviser assigned to Mr. Abdulmutallab, who was representing himself in court,
DETROIT said that he was disappointed with Mr. Abdulmutallabs last-moment decision, but that it was entirely his choice.

The federal court systems ability to prosecute high-level terrorists quickly, efficiently and securely is demonstrated by Mr. Farouks case. It was able to secure a prosecution under the watch of an impartial judge in a civilian court and uphold its moral obligation to maximize justice while still ensuring that justice was served. This is in the interest of countless parties, namely the United States government and citizens of all Western societies. By implementing a fair trial and securing a prosecution, a dangerous terrorist was secured and will no longer be free to plot against the United States or other Western countries that are common targets of terrorists. Mr. Farouk also benefitted from the extension of due process. He was not subjected to extra-constitutional interrogation practices, nor was he denied the right to legal counsel or numerous other constitutionally protected rights. Contention 3: Current tribunal systems perpetuate violence. Richard Phillips writes, [World Socialist Web Site reporter, December 18th, 2004, David Hicks details abuse in Guantanamo
Bay. World Socialist Web Site. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/dec2004/hick-d18.shtml]Gurpaul

Hicks is one of four Guantnamo Bay prisoners formally charged on allegations of terrorist activity. and due to face trial early next year. He explained that he was beaten before, after, and during

[and] threatened, directly and indirectly, with firearms and other weapons before and during interrogations during his three-year detention. [] He states that he has been hit in the face, head, feet, and torso with hands, fists and other objects , including rifle butts. At one point, a group of Detainees, including myself, was [were] subjected to being randomly hit over an eight-hour session while handcuffed and blindfolded, he said. His head was rammed into the ground several times. []Hicks affidavit demonstrates, yet again, that Physical and psychological abuse is part of the jails standard operating procedure. [] I have witnessed the activities of The Internal Reaction Force [or] (hereinafter IRF), which consists of a squad of soldiers that enter a detainees cell and brutalise him with the aid of an attack dog. The IRF invasions were so common that the term to be IRFed became part of the language of the detainees. I have seen Detainees suffer serious injuries as a result of being IRFed. I have seen detainees IRFed while they were praying, or for refusing medication. Hicks stated that he was Depriv[ation] of sleep was a matter of policy, [and they were] forcibly injected with unknown sedativeshis requests for information about the drugs ignored
interrogations... and beaten while under their influence.

Under the military tribunal system that is currently employed in dealing with terrorism suspects, the accused terrorists human rights are compromised, and they are subjected to long, brutal interrogations meant to draw confessions out of the suspects physical and psychological desperation. This is also contrary to the framework of maximizing

justice for accused terrorists. These military tribunals inflict physical and psychological pain on the accused terrorists, and thus, are in direct defiance of the utilitarian framework. Contention 4:
Terrorists deserve rights as POWs David Luban writes [2002, Expertise: Human Rights Law, Jurisprudence and Philosophy, Legal Profession and Professional Ethics, University Professor and
Professor of Law and Philosophy, and the Acting Director of the Center on National Security and the Law]

[It is agreed that] The model of war offers much freer rein than that of law, and therein lies its appeal in
the wake of 9/11. First, in war but not in law it is permissible to use lethal force on enemy troops regardless of their degree of personal involvement with the adversary. The conscripted cook is as legitimate a target as the enemy general. Second, in war but not in law collateral damage, that is, foreseen but unintended killing of noncombatants, is permissible. (Police cannot blow up an apartment building full of people because a murderer is inside, but an air force can bomb the building if it

the requirements of evidence and proof are drastically weaker in war than in criminal justice. Soldiers do not need proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or even proof
contains a military target.) Third,

by a preponderance of evidence, that someone is an enemy soldier before firing on him or capturing and imprisoning him. They don t need proof at all, merely plausible
intelligence. Thus, the U.S. military remains regretful but unapologetic about its January 2002 attack on the Afghani town of Uruzgan, in which 21 innocent civilians were killed, based on faulty intelligence that they were al Qaeda fighters. Fourth, in war one can attack an enemy without concern over whether he has done anything. Legitimate targets are those who in the course of combat might harm us, not those who have harmed us. No doubt there are other significant differences as well. But the basic point should be clear: given Washingtons mandate to eliminate the danger of future 9/11s, so far as humanly possible,

[However] the model of

war offers important advantages over the model of law. There are disadvantages as well. Most obviously, in war but not in law, fighting back is a legitimate response of the enemy. Second, when nations fight a war, other nations may opt for neutrality. Third, because fighting back is legitimate, in war the enemy soldier deserves special regard once he is rendered harmless through injury or surrender. It is impermissible to punish him for his role in fighting the war. Nor can he be harshly interrogated after he is captured. The Third Geneva Convention provides [that]: Prisoners of war who refuse to answer [questions] may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind. And, when the war concludes, the enemy soldier must be repatriated. Here, however, Washington has different ideas, designed to eliminate these tactical disadvantages in
the traditional war model.

Persons accused of terrorism can be defined as prisoners of war in the United States war on terror. The current treatment of accused terrorists directly violates the constraints laid out at the Third Geneva Convention that pertain to the treatment of POWs. They are routinely abused for their refusal to answer prosecutors questions and incriminate themselves, which is a clear violation of their rights, and consequently the framework. Thus, I affirm. Definitions: Due Process: A course of formal proceedings carried out regularly and in accordance with established rules and principles
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/due process

Citizen: a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and who is entitled to protection from it
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/citizen?show=0&t=1348591941

Terrorism: The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism

Utilitarianism: the ethical doctrine that virtue is based on utility, and that conduct should be directed toward promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number of persons.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/utilitarianism?s=t