As the threat of terrorism continues to evolve, the United States should evolve the way in which we deal with terrorism and terrorist. The same approach should not be used at each time, as each threat is different. As it relates to due process, the way we punish terrorist should be handled differently than trying them in an ordinary criminal court. I do not believe terrorist, foreign or native, have the rights to due process when there is an intent of causing harm to Americans, especially on US soil. “Normal due process rights, including the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them, must be managed very carefully lest they undermine anti-terrorism efforts. Similarly, where potential defendants are apprehended on foreign battlefields, some standard Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights (having to do with search warrants, Miranda warnings, the right to have an attorney present while being questioned) and other rules pertaining to evidence (the exclusionary rule, the prohibition of hearsay evidence) are clearly out of place” (Cosgrove, 2004).
As it relates to the morality of Drone Attacks on terrorist, do I agree? Absolutely I do. The use of predetermined drone strikes should be allowed for any enemy of and trying to do harm to the US or its citizens. The argument can be made that the terrorist act or intent to cause harm is a threat to our national security.
Since the U.S has been fighting terrorism, there has been more that 500 terrorist killed, most have been by drone strikes, which have been the weapons of choice by the Obama administration.
Cosgrove, B., (2004). Due Process for Terrorist. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/due-process-for-terrorists/
Michaels, J., (2015). Drones: The face of the war on terror. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/03/19/drones-
NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
The post critique discussion below 32 appeared first on The Nursing Hub.