The Secret Trial [WLOs: 2, 3] [CLOs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5] ✓ Solved

The Secret Trial [WLOs: 2, 3] [CLOs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Prior to beginning your written assignment read the Criminal Procedure article, Right to a Speedy and Public Trial - Public Trial article, the Right to Confront Witness article, Right to Counsel article and review the Supreme Court Opinions synopses. Read the following 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.

The Secret Trial paper must be 500 to 750 words in length (not including title and references pages) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center’s APA Style. Must include a separate title page with the title of paper, student’s name, course name and number, instructor’s name, and date submitted. Must utilize academic voice and include an introduction and conclusion paragraph. Your introduction paragraph needs to end with a clear thesis statement that indicates the purpose of your paper. Must use at least three court cases and one scholarly source. Must document any information used from sources in APA style and include a separate references page that is formatted according to APA style.

Paper For Above Instructions

The proposed Secret Terrorism Trial Bill presents a tumultuous intersection of national security and constitutional rights that compels us to scrutinize its implications against the backdrop of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The amendments to the constitution, particularly designed to safeguard individual liberties, seem to clash with the proposed changes aiming to combat terrorism. This paper will analyze whether the proposed Secret Terrorism Trial Bill violates the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial, the right to confront witnesses, and whether the government's pursuit of national security indeed supersedes the constitutional rights of the accused. Furthermore, it will evaluate the applicability of the Sixth Amendment in the context of terrorism, which the framers of the Constitution may not have anticipated.

To begin with, the Sixth Amendment ensures the right to a public trial, a tenet that serves numerous essential functions in the judicial process. Public trials enhance transparency, accountability, and fairness in the judicial system and serve as a check against arbitrary jurisdiction. The proposed legislation contemplates secret, non-public trials which conflict dramatically with the Sixth Amendment's mandate for public adjudication of accusations. The Supreme Court has established that a public trial is a fundamental right, stating that it not only benefits the accused but also serves society at large by ensuring public vigilance and a check on the judicial process (Waller v. Georgia, 1984). The implementation of secret trials may fuel public distrust of the judicial system, undermining the legitimacy of judicial outcomes.

Equally significant is the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of the right to confront witnesses. This right, often termed "the heart of the adversary system," allows defendants to challenge the evidence and engage with their accusers directly. The proposed bill permits witnesses to testify remotely and without revealing their identities, effectively removing the defendant’s opportunity to confront their accusers. This raises profound ethical and legal questions regarding the fairness of trials where the accused cannot question the credibility of witnesses or understand the context and motivations behind their statements. As established in the case of Crawford v. Washington (2004), the ability to confront witnesses directly is intrinsic to the fair trial guarantee; hence, the proposed measures may significantly infringe upon this foundational right.

With respect to the government’s claim that a heightened need to combat terrorism justifies violations of individual rights, it is imperative to approach this argument with a discerning eye. The framing of certain legal actions within the context of national security often obfuscates the constitutional protections afforded to all individuals, regardless of their alleged crimes. While the need to address the threats posed by terrorism is undeniable, such urgency cannot eclipse the constitutional rights enshrined in the Sixth Amendment. The metaphorical balancing of government interests against individual rights was addressed in cases such as United States v. Salerno (1987), where the Court ruled that the government’s interests must not negate the rights of the accused. The necessity of finding a measure that does not undercut the very rights meant to safeguard individuals is essential.

Finally, the query arises: Does the Sixth Amendment’s character of protecting the rights of the accused extend to individuals charged with terrorism? The framers of the Constitution could not have envisioned the modern complexities of terrorism as we understand it today. However, the underlying principles of justice, fair representation, and due process remain intact and should apply uniformly. The fundamental moral tenet of justice is not defined by the nature of one’s alleged crimes but is a universal right intrinsic to all individuals within the jurisdiction of the United States. Ignoring this could set a perilous precedent that would erode civil liberties and potentially lead to unjust outcomes against any accused, hindering the foundational beliefs upon which the United States was built.

In conclusion, the proposed Secret Terrorism Trial Bill raises severe constitutional concerns, fundamentally challenging the rights provided by the Sixth Amendment. The implications of secret trials, the inability to confront witnesses, and the invocation of national security to bypass established rights illustrate an alarming trajectory which necessitates a meticulously cautious approach. The essence of justice must be preserved, ensuring that while we fight terrorism, we do not undermine the very freedoms that define our democracy. As we proceed into an uncertain future fraught with potential threats, we must safeguard individual rights while upholding justice to maintain the integrity of our legal system.

References

• Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984).
• Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).
• United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987).
• U.S. Constitution, Amendment VI.
• Right to a Speedy and Public Trial - Public Trial article. (n.d.). Retrieved from [URL]
• Right to Confront Witness article. (n.d.). Retrieved from [URL]
• Right to Counsel article. (n.d.). Retrieved from [URL]
• Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. (n.d.). Retrieved from [URL]
• Scholarly Peer-Reviewed Source on Constitutional Rights. (n.d.). Retrieved from [URL]
• Supreme Court Opinions Synopses. (n.d.). Retrieved from [URL]