The Accountability of the American Government in the Case of Mr.Padilla

958 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: What is the importance of accountability

The Government of the United States, going against Mr.Padilla’s Constitutional rights and not providing him an opportunity to contest the legality of his detention, comprises the value of the Government’s accountability as a law-abiding state. In this particular case, it appears that government officers, including the president, believe that they should be able to do what is against pre-existing laws, if it is necessary to the preservation of the state and its citizens. However, this view raises some serious problems. If committed to a principle Rule of Law, one should never expect the government to act in an illegal way. The Rule of Law refers to “an end state in which all individuals and institutions, public and private, and the state itself are held accountable to the law, which is supreme” (Rule, n.d.). Therefore, the Rule of Law states, that every citizen is subject to the law, including the lawmakers themselves. All government officers of the States, including the president, the Justice of the Supreme Court, and all members of Congress, pledge to uphold the Constitution; affirming that the Rule of Law is superior to the rule of any human leader (Vile, 2006).
Avoiding the conflict between security and civil liberties, by identifying Mr. Padilla as an enemy combatant, comprises the value of the government’s accountability as a law-abiding state. Legal systems operating under the Rule of Law should never have an “off-thebooks” approach to necessity; even the defense of necessity must be justified lawfully (Timmons, ). As stated in the case study, the president labeled Mr.Padilla as “an enemy combatant who poses a serious and continuing threat to the American people and our national security.” However, the president’s attempt ...

... middle of paper ...

...a: Constitutional Unperson." Seattle Buzz. N.p., 29 Aug. 2005. Web. 28 Mar. 2014. .
Schwartzbach, Micah. "Criminal Defendants' Rights During Trial: The Bill of Rights." Nolo.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Mar. 2014. .
Vile, John . A Comparison to the United States Constitution and Its Amendments. United States of America: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006. Print.
Weaver, Jay, and Lisa Arthur. "Jose Padilla's Terrorism Trial." MiamiHerald.com | Jose Padilla's Terrorism Trial. N.p., 2007. Web. 28 Mar. 2014.
"7: Rule of Law." United States Institute of Peace. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2014. .

Show More
Related

  • Analysis Of 'The Armed Citizen In The Early Republic' By Robert E. Shalhope

    1098 Words  | 3 Pages

    Since its ratification in December of 1791, the Second Amendment has created a major controversy as Americans have been arguing over the meaning and interpretation of the amendment. Due to the controversy, “angry polarization and distortion, rather

    Read More

  • Against Consent Searches

    1530 Words  | 4 Pages

    Schneckloth v. Bustamonte is a decidedly pro-order case because it qualifies another excuse police can raise to search a citizen. It asserts that an individual can verbally waive their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures so long as this waiver is not coerced by a government official. The Court goes on to decide that it is not required for suspects to demonstrate knowledge of these rights before waiving them. The blow to liberty interest is put most elegantly in Justice Marshall's dissent when he writes, "I have difficulty in comprehending how a decision made without knowledge of available alternatives can be treated as a choice at all." This precedent that a citizen may make a decision to waive their rights without knowing of the alternative, in this case maintaining the Fourth Amendment's protections, is perfectly legitimate is dangerous for liberty interests in a world where order-seeking policemen seek to take advantage of uninformed citizens. It is a terrible matter of policy. The logic in reaching this conclusion is no better. It is an argument fraught with weak reasoning and dangerous interpretations of the Constitution.

    Read More

  • Case Study: Rumsfeld V. Padilla

    1039 Words  | 3 Pages

    The writ of habeas corpus should have been filed towards the person directly accountable for Padilla’s containment. Therefore, Padilla should have filed against the commander of the military brig he was held at, which was located in South Carolina. However, it was also stated that the President did not have the power to declare American citizens, not located in a combat zone, an “enemy combatant.”

    Read More

  • Revision of the Eighth Amendment

    887 Words  | 2 Pages

    October 5, 2013 in Cornell Law. CRS/LII Annotated Constitution of the United States. Cornell University Law School, Inc. 2013. The. Web. The Web.

    Read More

  • The Mendez Brothers Trial

    1323 Words  | 3 Pages

    Is it possible to sympathize with two calculated killers, if they claimed abuse? The jurors of the Menendez brothers’ first trial thought so. The Menendez brothers came from a wealthy family who lived in Beverly Hills, but everything was not as posh as it seemed. Lyle and Erik Menendez seemed to have it all, but their family allegedly had a deep secret. This secret eventually came out on the day that they murdered their parents in cold blood. The brothers shot their parents in their own home, like professional hit men. Aside from this trial, there have been many other cases showing conflicting ideas between jurors. In the play Twelve Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose, he portrays the modern-day problems with the justice system. Through researching this case and reading the play, Twelve Angry Men, one can infer that the jurors from this play would hav/e great difficulty in coming to a verdict in the Menendez Trial.

    Read More

  • The Downing of Korean Airlines Flight 007

    1307 Words  | 3 Pages

    John Andrew Morton, “The KAL 007 Incident As An Event In The Evolution of International Law,” University of South Carolina School of Law, December 1985.

    Read More

  • War On Terror and The USA PATRIOT Act,

    595 Words  | 2 Pages

    Long a polarizing issue, a balance between civil liberties and national security has constantly trailed America’s pursuit of happiness. Civil liberties are defined as rights for each individual person that serve to protect said individuals, by law, from unjust governmental interference, and encompasses all interference that may infringe on given rights. Incidentally, America has sucumb to such infringments within its lifetime, some early in its history, and some with recurring now with vestiges of the more prominent liberty violations which had reigned before. A much more recent example, terrorist attacks offended on September 11 shook our nation and brought with it government reform that many had not seen before. And with these governmental reforms, America has begun to backlash after more and more information about these unjust offenses has begun to leak from both prolific media outlets and workers in government themselves. The attacks committed on September 11, 2001. Although initially intended to protect America, the war on terror has begun to encroach on civil liberties and the ...

    Read More

  • Is The War Measures Act Justified?

    315 Words  | 1 Pages

    The War Measures Act is not justified as it supports the violation of rights and freedoms of individuals, in effort to eradicate all threats to keep society safe. Interference within the economy by the federal government results to a lack of personal freedom, as it takes away an individual’s decision on how to spend and act; they can intervene directly in the economy to control transportation, manufacturing, trade, and agricultural production. Legal rights are highly impacted, as the act suspends habeas corpus; the right of a detained person to be brought before a judge or other official to decide whether the detention is lawful. Therefore, any suspected threat to the government could be imprisoned or deported, without being given a fair trial;

    Read More

  • Bond V. US Case Study

    650 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the years of 2013 through 2014, the Bond v. U.S. case, came before the U.S. Supreme Court in connection with the tenth amendment (Oyez). The tenth amendment states that, “The powers not given to the U.S. by the Constitution or prohibited by it to states are reserved to the states, or more subsequently, the people (Hart). The question and hand for the Supreme Court was, “Does Congress have the authority to enact a law that enforces a treat but goes beyond the scope of the treaty and intrudes on traditional state privileges?” This essay will explore events that occurred leading to the court case, the court’s decision, and the impact of the decision (Oyez).

    Read More

  • Interrogation And Interrogation Essay

    561 Words  | 2 Pages

    The book’s title, with its dry allusion to the separation of powers, does not do it justice. “Guantánamo and the Abuse of Presidential Power” represents the best account yet of what Mr. Margulies calls “a human rights debacle that will eventually take its place alongside other wartime misadventures, including the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, the prosecutions under the Espionage and Sedition Acts during World War I, and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War.”

    Read More

  • Why Our Nation's Founding Fathers Choose To Be Ruled Under Rule Of Law

    821 Words  | 2 Pages

    There is a Centuries long debate as to why our Nation’s Founding Fathers chose for us to be ruled under rule of law instead of rule of man. Our Founding Fathers founded this nation on a promotion “We the People”. They ruled that we should be led under the rule of law rather than the rule of man for multiple reasons. Our government now though is stipulating whether or not the old American government made the right choice, when compared to other foreign countries. At the beginning of our country the Constitution was not meant to be read as a collection a suggestions rather as a way to get men away from their old tendencies. Those were the days where the rights of the average man were the top priority of the government. Today however we need to remember that the rule of the law is supposed to focus on the rights of the citizens and not on who is wearing what in Hollywood. Over the years we have ruined our government, even Woodrow Wilson said, “I have unwillingly ruined my government.” The factors now included in Rule of Law are a little different from they were 250 years ago. To find out why the Founding Fathers Chose Rule of Law we need to look at several reasons why our nations’ officials like or don’t like the rule of law. We must also look at whether the factors are too much at this point for our nations to change and go another way with our leadership and the way we run our country.

    Read More

  • Government Vs Government

    984 Words  | 2 Pages

    Since December 15, 1791, the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees our rights and places limitations on federal and state governments. By placing limits, the states have their sovereignty. This form of cooperative federalism safeguards the checks and balance system that is the keystone of the U.S. Constitution. To protect our civil liberties, like freedom of press, the Anti-Federalist wanted the Constitution to include a Bill of Rights. This paper will discuss the importance of limited government regarding civil liberties, the limits on the governmental role through the Constitution and its effects on government dealings with foreign issues.

    Read More

  • The Purpose of Criminal Law

    855 Words  | 2 Pages

    There simply is no alternate system of laws that can maintain the calm and peaceful environment for people of the world besides “law”. One can easily see the need for each and every nation to enforce its own set of rules. While all of the countries of the world have their own individuality – they all have one considerable feature which is a system of law. It has no significance what type of government is the command, the rules are all appropriate to the people in their community.

    Read More

  • Debating Detention: Rights of Terrorists Post-9/11

    1697 Words  | 4 Pages

    “Since September 11, the Bush Administration has refused to release the names and whereabouts of hundreds of persons detained as "special interest" immigration detainees, various persons detained as material witnesses, and thousands of persons detained without trial as alleged security threats here, at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere”(Paust 1352). Because of the staggering amount of suspected terrorists detained without trial since 9/11, some people have started to question President Bush’s right to detain these people indefinitely. These questions have led to open debate on what rights these people get, and if these people deserve the right to a trial. The controversy over how the United States should treat terrorists that have been captured

    Read More

  • Rule Of Law Essay

    1020 Words  | 3 Pages

    The rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in International law.

    Read More

More about The Accountability of the American Government in the Case of Mr.Padilla

Open Document