Civil Liberties in Democratic Land: Bias amidst Foreign Terrorist Threats - Essay Example

..(entailed) beneficial to society” (Kendall). Unfortunately, generalization of such function may have been exploited against individuals of foreign citizenship. This paper would scrutinize current bias in civilian liberties the nation allows, where foreign terrorist suspects should be allowed the same privileges that American enjoy and be tried by U.S. federal courts, which had been accusing foreigners of terrorist acts. The Constitution clearly indicated, in “Article II, Section 9,” that people can only be detained in the absence of legal charges during extreme situation where public safety would be at stake (Cohen and Wells 186).

As interpreted, even foreign ones should have been assured by such decree. However, enactment of the PATRIOT (Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act, seemed to dismantle the right that even immigrants enjoy, relegating breaches in civil privileges, from free social associations in its region, to lack of private rights and protection--authorities can tap on personal communications and activities, and imprison suspected immigrants without due warrant and criminal charges.

All of these would be according to the discretion (or lack of) of the legislative administration (Yen 690, 692). The judicial system seemed to be superseded by legislative power in trying determining the innocence of foreign individuals in American land. The controversial case of two suspected terrorists, Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla, clarifies the real situations behind international terrorism and its prevention. Hamdi was imprisoned without a legal counsel to represent him, and was prevented to acquire one (Cassel 60), while seized Padilla had a legal representative despite the absence of a criminal charge (Bauschard 23).

As one can observe, one was accorded his right, while the other had been denied his. In a land where everyone is supposedly given equal treatment, the country sidestepped their own credo for another pursuit. Relatively, the danger of treating a suspected person as terrorist roots on the standard formulated, which had not been even published for public scrutiny. As summarized by Storch, individuals can be considered enemy combatants when “detention is the interests of the United States” (148).

This is quite a threatening notion, for it lacks objective parameters safeguarding the interest of civilians, local and immigrants alike. There should be reasonable grounds on which to base the detention of non-citizens in the absence of a legal charge, as such with the cases above, where most evidences were vague and conclusive in remarks, without valid points and hard evidence to back them up (149). One must bear in mind that these groups are only suspected of terrorist associations, and most may be falsely accused, yet, the lack of legal system that partially convict these foreign individuals contrasts the image of United States as a country of equal rights and treatment.

Even hardened criminals stand trial even if evidences already convict them. Foreign groups are already considered criminals, based on racial profiling that identifies them, and not on substantial evidences that prove otherwise (Audi). Prejudice, then, is raised in such instances. As gleaned on events leading to uncharged detention of foreign groups, safeguarding the overall security of citizens would always take precedence over anything else. Reasonably, the development of such anti-terrorism movement had simply been