Wouldn't that violate the Sixth Amendment?PacificGoldenPlover wrote:Just curious, what do people think about the new National Defense Authorization Act that says American citizens can be held indefinitely without trial, lawyer, or knowledge of charges if they are suspected of being terrorists?
My stance: Unconstitutional, should be removed from United States LawBill of Rights wrote: AMENDMENT 6. Right to a Speedy, Public Trial (1791) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
My argument: If the accused is innocent, indefinite jail time before the trial could force the accused to confess to a crime that he/she never committed. If the accused is guilty, there should be enough evidence to prove that by the time the accused is arrested. If otherwise, you could just keep the accused under surveillance with the justification being the evidence that has already been collected. I believe that this law opens the door to arrests made not on the basis of evidence, but on the basis of prejudice. Finally, the law clearly violates the Sixth Amendement.
Note: The quote was taken from the eighth grade history textbook that my school uses, Creating America: Beginnings Through Reconstruction (A McDougal Littell textbook).
