The Function of the US Constitution - Essay Example

Making a terrorist stop what they’re doing, or stopping terrorism in general, appears to be fairly straightforward when they come from somewhere else.  In that case, the terrorists are immediately seen as outsiders, the “others.”  They will be stopped by whatever means are necessary, even if that means is violent.  A prime example is the recent death of Osama bin Laden.  Killed in Pakistan by U.S. Navy SEALs, when Americans heard that bin Laden was dead, an impromptu celebration broke out.  Katelyn Sellars reports, “Once Americans learned of his death, enormous crowds united at Ground Zero, outside the white house, and Times Square in New York City. They were singing, and chanting ‘U.S.A! U.S.A!’, others honked their car horns through all hours of the night down the D.C. streets. In New York, a relieved crowd sang “The Star-Spangled Banner” (Sellars).  Soon after, the President himself was quoted as calling bin Laden’s death our nation’s “most significant achievement to date” in regards to our efforts against al Qaeda (Sellars).  Not only did Americans feel relief when they received news of bin Laden’s death, but many of them also revelled in the murder of the man.  There can be no clearer indication of an “Us” vs “Them” attitude.

            When the terrorist in question is an American citizen themselves, however, suddenly the nation becomes torn.  Some insist that the terrorist be given all the rights and freedoms of other Americans.  This would include the right to hear their Miranda rights, and their right to be protected against self-incrimination.  Others feel that once a person commits an act of terrorism against America, that person forfeits their rights.  The mindset is that the Constitution and Bill of Rights for our country were not designed to protect those who would seek to bring harm to America but to protect those who wish to make it thrive.

            The courts are therefore put in the position of having to ride the fence, in a way.  On the one hand, they must see that each situation brought before them is unique and must be treated as such.  With that in mind, they must make rulings that allow for continued flexibility.  That is to say, they cannot make a ruling that is so restrictive that, in the case of another similar individual coming before them, the judge is unable to take into account any extenuating circumstances.  On the other hand, the responsibility of putting a stop to terrorism and exacting harsh punishment for so diabolical a crime is a heavy one.  At the time the Constitution was made, practically no one believed that the courts would come to wield such heavy responsibility:

Although most of the Framers of the Constitution anticipated that the Federal judiciary would be the weakest branch of Government, the U.S. Supreme Court has come to wield enormous power with decisions that have reached into the lives of every citizen and resolved some of the most dramatic confrontations in U.S. history (“Charters of Freedom”). 

We can see, through all of their efforts, the courts have indeed done their jobs and done them well.  As such, we may continue to expect great results from our courts and judges when they deal with acts of terrorism, whether they come from a single individual or a large-scale group.

            Upon reading through the article “F.B.I. Memorandum” which describes the various situations in which a suspected terrorist may be detained and interrogated without having been advised of their Miranda rights, I find that the rulings are Constitutional.  Throughout their rulings, the courts have done all within their power to both protect the rights of the American citizen (terrorist though they may be) and still allow law enforcement professionals to protect the nation from potential threats.  Such a balance is imperative in our nation where the idea is that the sum of the whole is greater than the parts, but that the sum does not come at the expense of the parts.

            The article clearly states, “The determination whether particular unwarned questions are justified on public safety grounds must always be made on a case-by-case basis based on all the facts and circumstances” (“New York Times”).  In this way, the courts have made it clear that every situation must be seen as the unique set of circumstances it is.  Therefore, there cannot be any “general rule of thumb” to interrogations.  This is surely the best way to protect the best interests of both American citizens and the nation they belong to.

            The one caveat about such rulings is that aryl does not satisfy the desire to see all rights stripped away from those who would commit acts of terrorism against the United States.  Many citizens feel, as stated previously, that once a person or a group decides to take terrorist action against this nation, they may no longer call themselves citizens of America.  Individuals of that opinion often chafe at the lengths taken to protect the rights of those who wish to bring harm to the U.S.  Though it is difficult to accept in those cases, the courts have truly done their duty in making Constitutional rulings.