Unlawful Combatants Case Study

Fair trial for “Unlawful Combatants”

We are used to living in a black or white world where a situation is wrong or right, either or, that our understandings are filled with shallow assimilations. The one place we can hope to witness less of this plain resolution is in the courthouse. There is a law that terminates an alleged terrorist from being rushed to a sentence, rather obligates that they go through trial even if they plead guilty; this is just how far the law goes not only to protect us but the principles that makes us. “Justice” such a honey dipped sweet word that brings ease to the ear, yet incertitude to the mind. What is justice? Where do you get justice? How do you get justice? Is justice as divine as we think? Are the sea of questions that will only get deeper the more we divein. One thing our criminal justice court has understood is that, in the pursuit of justice an objective atmosphere is indispensable, “Judges and juries are responsible for determining whether an alleged offender is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” (Riley 2017). Although we can never be free of our servitude to our own thoughts, acknowledging the wrong in being so without comprehensible facts is a step towards. The law is made for those moments where our emotions not only overpower, but

. . you’ve got the risk of terrorists . . . killing thousands or tens of thousands of people, you’re not terribly interested in whether or not the person is potentially a subject for law enforcement”(Kanstroom 2003). What most fail to understand is that the right of habeas corpus Is not to protect the offender per se, but to assure the maximization of the yield of justice our verdict can yield. In fact, going through the due process can further unravel facts and evidence, opening doors for other investigations that could addresses the root problem. Which otherwise would have never come to our concern, if we had rushed to verdict and sentence, or prosecuted, the alleged