Paper Summary:

This paper examines the presence of the unconstitutional practices of the United States' government, citing several Supreme Court cases as examples. The author argues that the government its overstepping its bounds by holding detainees without providing them with counsel or the opportunity to defend themselves. The paper illustrates this argument with the Korematsu case in which American citizens of Japanese descent were excluded from areas that were considered critical in terms of national defense and possible espionage, and the case of of "Rasul vs. the United States" in which four citizens from Britain and Australia were brought to the American military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba during the War on Terror and denied access to attorneys while being held indefinitely. The paper discusses these cases and argues that the accused deserve the right to be heard in court and to contest any ruling against him or her, and without that, the Constitution of the United States will mean nothing.

From the Paper:

"The decision is therefore deemed as consistent with the rules under which such decisions are made. Although this is based upon a legal technicality, decisions that are made in this way provide evidence that the Supreme Court is concerned with protecting all petitioners appearing before it in an impartial and lawful manner. Regardless of how likely guilt is, and regardless of the crime, the accused deserves the right to be heard in court and to contest any ruling against him or her."

Sample of Sources Used:

• The Oyez Project, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004),available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_6696/>(last visited Friday, February 8, 2008).
• The Oyez Project, Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944),available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1944/1944_22/>(last visited Friday, February 8, 2008).
• The Supreme Court of the United States. Khaled A.F. Al Odah et al. v. United States of America et al.; Shafiq Rasul et al. v. George W. Bush et al.; Yasir Esam Hamdi v. Donald Rumsfeld. http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/03-334/03-334.pet.ami.korematsu.pdf
• The Supreme Court of the United States. (2003, Oct.) Rumsfeld, Sectretary of Defense v. Padilla. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-1027.pdf
• The Supreme Court of the United States. (2003, Oct.) Hamdi et al. v. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense et al. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-6696.pdf

Visitors who viewed this Persuasive Essay also liked these:

• Persuasive Essay # 107282 : "The Right to a Fair Trial"
• Term Paper # 147111 : "When Should a Lawyer Reveal Confidential Communications"
• Essay # 12343 : "Free Press and Fair Trials"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: