The 5th Amendment should be respected in Boston bombing case

Spartan Daily




Updated 7:19 pm April 29, 2013







The 5th Amendment should be respected in Boston bombing case Sections

News

Sports

Opinion

A&E

Multimedia

Tech

Class Reports



The 5th Amendment should be respected in Boston bombing case



by Wesley Dugle Apr 24, 2013 7:09 pm Tags: 5th amendment, bombings, Boston Marathon, due process, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, law, terrorists







Wesley Dugle is a contributing writer.





One of my personal beliefs I hold very true to myself is that even in the face of destruction, one should never compromise their morals.



In this country, those morals take the form of our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.



These documents are sacred to us, they define being American, it’s what our country was founded on and I firmly believe that these ideals should not be compromised.



One of those rights is the right to due process.



Last week, terrorists bombed the Boston Marathon which killed four people, including a small child and wounded more than 100.





In its aftermath, we saw these morals bent and even questioned.



Following the attacks, an unprecedented number of National Guard and police were sent into the city of Boston to find two suspects named Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev.



After Dzhokar Tsarnaev was captured (Tamerlan was killed by the police) people, such as senator Lindsey Graham and various other media and political talking heads, have been calling for his head, saying we should ignore due process and charge him as an enemy combatant without rights.



Doing such things runs contrary to the morals this country was founded on.



The Fifth Amendment in our Constitution clearly states that citizens cannot be deprived of their right to due process and, whether you like it or not, Tsarnaev is one.



Due process is not just an American right though — it’s a human right and one that should be respected.



Just because the media says the suspect is guilty does not necessarily mean so and even with the evidence in place, there still needs to be a trial.



I’m not saying this man is innocent by any stretch, but the law is the law and the law says innocent until proven guilty.



By putting this man through the courts we ensure justice is done and we have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he really did all these horrible things.



If we ignore these rights we become no better than the third-world countries these terrorists often come from and we essentially prove that we can be just as capable of tyranny.



We give all the potential terrorists in the world talking points for new recruits saying, “See? Look how easily they abandon the law each time we attack them. They’re tyrants!”



If we choose to throw out the Bill of Rights each time the public deems someone a terrorist, not the courts, then we are no longer a society ruled by the courts and the law.



We become one ruled by the mob.



Now to those who say we should charge Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant, all I have to ask is, ever heard of the Nuremberg Trials?



Following World War II, the U.S. and Allied powers gave every single Nazi and Japanese war criminal due process and put them on trial.



Now you cannot tell me with a straight face that somehow Tsarnaev deserves less, or that his crimes are on the same level as those monsters of World War II, who killed thousands of people.



Hell, the shooter in Aurora, Colorado last year killed more people and he is still getting a trial. What’s the difference?



Why do we do this you ask? Because that’s true justice, that’s showing the rest of the world that you may attack us, you may kill our people, but we’ll never stoop down to your level.



If we do, that’s revenge and that’s not real justice.



Being bloodthirsty neanderthals won’t bring our beloved dead back nor will it change what happened.



By turning the other cheek we show the world we are stronger than those who try to hurt us.



The point of a terrorist attack is not to win any battles or wars, but to cause terror and get the country pissed off enough to do something tyrannical to further justify their cause.



We should prove them otherwise, and I hate to use internet lingo here, by not feeding the trolls.



Think about it. What would piss off all the potential terrorists in the world more than showing them we are unafraid of them and that even in the face of devastation we still show them justice by trial?



Killing them outright doesn’t intimidate them — merely makes them martyrs which only gives them fuel for their radical beliefs.



We have laws and rights for a reason and, whether you like it or not, this man, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, whether he is guilty or not, deserves due process.



Simply put, if we bend on one rule then it makes it too easy to do the same for everything else.



You are opening a door that may be difficult for the government to close by doing so. It basically tells them that anybody can have their rights stripped if the mob deems you unworthy of them — not the courts.



If the rules can be thrown out each time the people or the government deems something as a security risk or someone as an enemy combatant then there is really no point in having them.



Rule by mob is not justice, it’s barbaric and we must stand as an example to the rest of the world when these tragic events happen, because without our morals, without our Bill of Rights, we are nothing.

One thought on “The 5th Amendment should be respected in Boston bombing case”





Ted Rudow III, MA on April 30, 2013 at 1:09 pm said:

Yes, there will be many logical, rational, necessary reasons to get your own personal microchip–security reasons, health reasons, economic reasons, you name it. The "need" is becoming more apparent all the time. Soon it will be the in thing to do, and then the customary thing, and eventually the mandatory thing.

The march toward an Orwellian society a quick journey: The tremendous explosion in surveillance-enabling technologies, including databases, computers, cameras, sensors, wireless networks, implantable microchips, GPS, and biometrics; and the weakening of civil-liberty protections, as government and private surveillance increases and a giant infrastructure tying the technologies together is contemplated.

Ted Rudow III, MA

Class of 1996













Spartan Daily





© 2013 The Spartan Daily

Serving San Jose State since 1934