The Proposed Secret Terrorism Trial Bill and Sixth Amendment Rights

by | Aug 21, 2023 | criminal law

case scenario:
In the ongoing war on terrorism, the new president has proposed expanding the jurisdiction of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA). FISA is a U.S. federal court established and authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to oversee requests for surveillance warrants against foreign spies inside the United States by federal law. The new president’s proposed Secret Terrorism Trial Bill will expand the jurisdiction of the FISA to hold secret, non-public trials of accused terrorists for any planned or actual acts of terrorism on U.S. soil. The bill will also allow witnesses to testify before the FISA Court by remote video with their identities kept secret from the accused and any defense team. The stated purpose for the secrecy is to allow trials of terrorists without giving them a public platform for their radical ideology and to allow witnesses to testify without fear of reprisals from terrorist groups such as ISIS or Al-Qaeda.
Write a paper addressing the following:
Explain whether the proposed Secret Terrorism Trial Bill violates the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial,
Describe whether the proposed Secret Terrorism Trial Bill violate the Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against you.
Explain whether the government’s overriding need to fight terrorism outweighs the Sixth Amendment rights of the accused.
Identify whether the Sixth Amendment applies to terrorists since the writers of the Constitution could not have envisioned mass shootings and suicide bombers.

Sample solution

Dante Alighieri played a critical role in the literature world through his poem Divine Comedy that was written in the 14th century. The poem contains Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. The Inferno is a description of the nine circles of torment that are found on the earth. It depicts the realms of the people that have gone against the spiritual values and who, instead, have chosen bestial appetite, violence, or fraud and malice. The nine circles of hell are limbo, lust, gluttony, greed and wrath. Others are heresy, violence, fraud, and treachery. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Dante’s Inferno in the perspective of its portrayal of God’s image and the justification of hell. 

In this epic poem, God is portrayed as a super being guilty of multiple weaknesses including being egotistic, unjust, and hypocritical. Dante, in this poem, depicts God as being more human than divine by challenging God’s omnipotence. Additionally, the manner in which Dante describes Hell is in full contradiction to the morals of God as written in the Bible. When god arranges Hell to flatter Himself, He commits egotism, a sin that is common among human beings (Cheney, 2016). The weakness is depicted in Limbo and on the Gate of Hell where, for instance, God sends those who do not worship Him to Hell. This implies that failure to worship Him is a sin.


This question has been answered

God is also depicted as lacking justice in His actions thus removing the godly image. The injustice is portrayed by the manner in which the sodomites and opportunists are treated. The opportunists are subjected to banner chasing in their lives after death followed by being stung by insects and maggots. They are known to having done neither good nor bad during their lifetimes and, therefore, justice could have demanded that they be granted a neutral punishment having lived a neutral life. The sodomites are also punished unfairly by God when Brunetto Lattini is condemned to hell despite being a good leader (Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). While he commited sodomy, God chooses to ignore all the other good deeds that Brunetto did.

Finally, God is also portrayed as being hypocritical in His actions, a sin that further diminishes His godliness and makes Him more human. A case in point is when God condemns the sin of egotism and goes ahead to commit it repeatedly. Proverbs 29:23 states that “arrogance will bring your downfall, but if you are humble, you will be respected.” When Slattery condemns Dante’s human state as being weak, doubtful, and limited, he is proving God’s hypocrisy because He is also human (Verdicchio, 2015). The actions of God in Hell as portrayed by Dante are inconsistent with the Biblical literature. Both Dante and God are prone to making mistakes, something common among human beings thus making God more human.

To wrap it up, Dante portrays God is more human since He commits the same sins that humans commit: egotism, hypocrisy, and injustice. Hell is justified as being a destination for victims of the mistakes committed by God. The Hell is presented as being a totally different place as compared to what is written about it in the Bible. As a result, reading through the text gives an image of God who is prone to the very mistakes common to humans thus ripping Him off His lofty status of divine and, instead, making Him a mere human. Whether or not Dante did it intentionally is subject to debate but one thing is clear in the poem: the misconstrued notion of God is revealed to future generations.

 

References

Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). Dante’s inferno: Seven deadly sins in scientific publishing and how to avoid them. Addiction Science: A Guide for the Perplexed, 267.

Cheney, L. D. G. (2016). Illustrations for Dante’s Inferno: A Comparative Study of Sandro Botticelli, Giovanni Stradano, and Federico Zuccaro. Cultural and Religious Studies, 4(8), 487.

Verdicchio, M. (2015). Irony and Desire in Dante’s” Inferno” 27. Italica, 285-297.

Sample Answer

Sample Answer

 

The Proposed Secret Terrorism Trial Bill and Sixth Amendment Rights
The proposed Secret Terrorism Trial Bill raises significant concerns regarding its potential violation of the Sixth Amendment rights of the accused. The Sixth Amendment guarantees several fundamental rights to individuals facing criminal charges, including the right to a public trial and the right to confront witnesses against them. Let’s explore whether the proposed bill infringes upon these rights.

Violation of the Sixth Amendment Right to a Public Trial
The proposed Secret Terrorism Trial Bill may violate the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. The amendment ensures that criminal trials are conducted openly and transparently, allowing public scrutiny and accountability. By holding secret, non-public trials, where the identities of witnesses and their testimonies are concealed from the accused and the defense team, the bill undermines the principle of public trials.

A public trial serves several important purposes. It promotes fairness by allowing public observation, ensuring that justice is administered impartially. Open trials also deter potential misconduct or abuse by the government or judiciary. Public scrutiny acts as a safeguard against unjust convictions and protects individuals’ rights to due process.

While it is understandable that the government seeks to prevent terrorists from using trials as platforms for their radical ideologies, it is crucial to balance this objective with the preservation of constitutional rights. Alternative measures, such as restricting public access to certain sensitive information or redacting names and other identifying details, can be employed to address national security concerns while still upholding the principle of public trials.

Violation of the Sixth Amendment Right to Confront Witnesses
The proposed Secret Terrorism Trial Bill may also infringe upon the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against the accused. This right ensures that individuals have an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, challenge their credibility, and test the reliability of their testimony.

By permitting witnesses to testify remotely with their identities kept secret from the accused and the defense team, the bill undermines the ability of the defense to effectively cross-examine witnesses. Cross-examination is a critical tool for uncovering inconsistencies, biases, or ulterior motives that may affect witness credibility. Denying defendants this opportunity weakens their ability to mount a robust defense and potentially leads to unjust outcomes.

While protecting witnesses from potential reprisals by terrorist groups is a legitimate concern, safeguards can be implemented without compromising the right to confront witnesses. For instance, witness identities could be revealed to defense counsel under strict confidentiality agreements or through secure communication channels. This would ensure that defendants can effectively challenge witness testimony while still addressing security risks.

Balancing National Security and Constitutional Rights
The government’s overriding need to fight terrorism is undoubtedly of utmost importance in ensuring public safety. However, it is essential to strike a balance between these national security imperatives and the constitutional rights of the accused.

The Sixth Amendment rights of individuals facing terrorism charges should not be disregarded simply because of the severity of the crimes they are accused of committing. Constitutional protections exist precisely to prevent governments from trampling upon basic rights in times of crisis.

Rather than completely subverting Sixth Amendment rights, a more appropriate approach would involve developing tailored procedures and protocols that address national security concerns while respecting due process. This could include specialized courts or modified trial procedures that strike a balance between safeguarding sensitive information and preserving constitutional rights.

Applicability of the Sixth Amendment to Terrorists
The Sixth Amendment applies to all individuals facing criminal charges within the United States, regardless of their alleged crimes or motivations. While the writers of the Constitution could not have envisioned modern acts of terrorism such as mass shootings or suicide bombings, they established fundamental principles that remain relevant today.

The protections enshrined in the Sixth Amendment extend to all individuals accused of crimes, including terrorists. The Constitution does not differentiate between types of offenses when guaranteeing these rights. To deny terrorists these constitutional protections would set a dangerous precedent that undermines the principles of justice and due process.

In conclusion, while combating terrorism is undoubtedly a critical priority for any government, it must be done within the confines of constitutional principles. The proposed Secret Terrorism Trial Bill raises concerns regarding potential violations of Sixth Amendment rights to a public trial and confrontation of witnesses. It is crucial to strike a balance between national security imperatives and protecting individual liberties, ensuring that alternative measures are explored to address security concerns without undermining constitutional protections

 

 

This question has been answered.

Get Answer