Due process and national security issues?

Question

The amendment says regardless of the extent of the crime that a person is alleged of, he is entitled a due process and that depriving him of liberty to serve his lawyers (interrogation) is illegal and it can be used against in the subsequent court trial to void the accusations. Like in the TV show 24 hours, Jack interrogated the suspect and he was able to save hundreds and thousands of American lives. However, in the course of his action he deprived the suspect of due process.

Is it held true when for example, New York is about to be bombed with nuclear missiles from North Korea and it will cause over 40,000,000 civilian casualties. The "only way" to stop this from happening is to question the North Korean suspect who is proven to be 100% involved in this. However, the suspect declines to cooperate and asks for a counsel. In this case, is he still entitled of due process?

1. If so, can he be deprived of right to counsel if the president orders to do so?

It's like the amendments are not without a flaw. In my opinion, if it concerns national security, which involves thousands of innocent lives on the line, the suspect shouldn't be given due process.

Answer 1

Well worded question.



In my opinion, the real question here is "is there ever a case when one's rights should be suspended for the greater good of society". The follow-on question is "who gets to make this decision, and on what grounds".



This is an extremely dangerous "slippery slope". Convicted criminals are sitting on death row, only to later be proved innocent by new evidence. It's exceedingly rare that one can be 100% positive about anything involving criminal behavior - unless you already know much of the plans and actions, in which case you'd already have the information needed to resolve the situation without the information held in the suspect's head. Kind of a "catch-22" situation.



My understanding: The president can not take away a person's rights, regardless of the circumstances or perceived need for danger avoidance (at least not under the constitutional law as it currently stands).



Now - if there ever was a case such as you described, then it's not clear how any authority would act. However, if these individuals acted inconsistently with existing laws, then there would be consequences - likely governmental officials would be convicted of various crimes, and the suspect would go free as any evidence must be thrown out.



Perhaps, if a situation like this arises, we'll see changes to our laws. But, until then, the laws stand. And we must act accordingly.



However, as I stated above, it would be exceedingly difficult to extract the needed information from the suspect by any means, if he is intent on his actions. After all - all he needs to do is remain silent for another few hours - then BOOM! So, even in this awful scenario, a better intelligence agency is the only real solution.



p.s. In response to Cabbie's post, the Supreme Court has already ruled that Due Process must be followed - even for suspected terrorists

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/btjusticehuman_rightsra/228.php?nid=&id=&pnt=228&lb=bthr

Answer 2

The Homeland Security Act, already ratified by congress, states that Due Process may be waived.



http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/laws/law_regulation_rule_0011.shtm



The President already signed the act.

Answer 3

Cabbie -- a search of the referenced homeland security law only has two references to due process and they have to do with dealings with employees and they require compliance with due process ,

Answer 4

That of that you talk with such disdain has not yet befell, yet a majority of human beings (consisting of former difficult artwork Secretary Robert Reisch) want the overseas disaster-causing British Petroleum positioned into non everlasting RECEIVERSHIP to make effectual all prices (both short- and lengthy-time period) on the challenge of the oil spill and its peripheral damages is roofed. Why the heck are you on BP's area and for this reason antagonistic to the pastimes of your own united states? that's, i anticipate that america is your united states... As a former difficult artwork recommend, i can attest to the actual incontrovertible reality that our authorities has the right to position businesses who're in violation of rights and guidelines in strategies that pose a chance to this united states and its electorate into RECEIVERSHIP, a device typically used if a organisation is in violation of workers' rights or is shown to discriminate many times. I lobbied for this to take position to our public transportation equipment in my state even as their ruthless administration became recommend and tried to viciously wreck their union after Reagan, the alzheimered, without caution and foolishly fired PATCO (the air site visitors controllers union). I frankly do not imagine an escrow account takes issues some distance adequate---i'd want to work out this abusive organisation (the FOURTH WEALTHIEST contained in the international previous to the spill) positioned into receivership so as that our authorities has finished get suitable of entry to to ALL of its books---in basic terms in case the executives attempt to drag effectual-and-run previously winding up their duties.