Or, as Saletan points out, those three elements "by deduction, are the due process test" (2011).
But this ought to leave a bad taste in one's mouth because all three of these elements can be manipulated to violate one's due process right.
"Which leaves us with an awkward bottom line. If the target is a suspected terrorist, "imminence" can be redefined to justify killing him. If the weapon is a drone, feasibility of arrest has already been ruled out -- that's why the drone has been sent to do the job. So in any drone strike on a U.S. citizen suspected of terrorism, only one of the three questions we supposedly apply to such cases is really open: Has he been fighting alongside al-Qaida? If he has, we can kill him. That's the same rule we apply to foreigners. In effect, citizenship doesn't matter. The "due process" test is empty" (Saletan 2011).
The "due process" test is empty because the criteria have been changed. Instead of trial by jury, it's an "imminent" threat evaluation done by a group of military commanders halfway around the world. Additionally, feasibility of apprehending an individual can be arbitrarily decided and, subsequently, ruled out. One can argue that a suspected U.S.-born terrorist is too far away to send federal agents after him; therefore, it is easier (better, more cost-efficient) to send predator drones. Lastly, one can argue that even if an individual has dubious associations with terrorist organizations, the suspect is himself a terrorist.
The point is all of this rationalizing with U.S.-born, suspected terrorists leads to a sliding-scale procedural process that is not based off of justice per se (or Constitutionally enumerated rights), but based on convenience, arbitrary judgments, and cost-saving measures. So the answer to the question of can someone's right to due process be violated, the answer is of course "yes," and all it takes to understand this is reviewing the process by which the U.S. government abrogates the rights of U.S.-born terrorists.
Now, there is...
The fact that Fred was eventually allowed to leave is less important in that determination than Fred's state of mind and reasonable belief about whether or not he was still free to leave once the police informed him that he was actually a suspect in Wilma's murder (Dershowitz, 2002; Zalman, 2008). Search and Seizure and Unlawful Arrest Issues: The fact pattern does not make clear whether or not the police actually
Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution governs the issue of double jeopardy and states in pertinent part, "No person… shall… be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb…( )." The Amendment was a codification of the common law that had long recognized the doctrine that a defendant should not be subject to multiple attempts by the state to convict him for
If an employee invokes the www.reference.comGarrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. (1967) the rule is most commonly applied to public employees such as police officers. If a police officer is suspected of taking bribes and is investigated by internal affairs (IA), and he is given a "Garrity" warning by the IA investigator, then admits that he has taken bribes and resigns, he cannot be prosecuted in criminal court on the
Amendments from the Bill of Rights in U.S. amendments 1st amendment 5th amendment 8th amendment Policy necessary for police investigators when interrogating suspect Type of crime Constitutional right upheld Rationale of the policy Evaluation of the policy Foreign policy dealing with the same issue Subject country Policy name in the country Components Evaluation of the policy Amendments from the Bill of Rights in U.S. 1st Amendment This Amendment has prohibited the making of any law with respect of religion establishment, obstructing a free practice of religion, reducing
The fact that arrested criminals are routinely read Miranda rights, informing them of their rights under the Fifth Amendment provides another example of a country concerned about justice. The framers included the phrases "insure domestic tranquility," "provide for the common defense," "promote the general welfare," and "secure the blessings of liberty" to make sure that the Federal government had the power to exercise general police powers and engage in warfare. Therefore,
amendments are an important part of the U.S. constitution and their effect on the legal system. Generally, the constitutional amendment process is crucial to the United States Constitution and legal system because it allows it to grow and incorporate modern ideas and factual realities that might never have been imagined by the Framers. To date, some of the most important societal changes in the U.S. were directly attributable to specific
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now