Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right

Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right

The Constitution of the United States was written to serve as the foundation of our American Government. The Constitution is the highest form of law, and no one is exempt from abiding by its laws. After the September 11 terrorist attacks the constitutional rights of many innocent persons have been violated, during an investigation to attain any one linked to the terrorism. In order to preserve these basic principles it is imperative to stand up and create an ideal argument for the rights guaranteed under the constitution. An ideal argument is defined as:

"An argument is not an altercation, but a reasonable discussion between two or more interested parties with opposing views on a question that is at issue. Each side in an argument organizes and then asserts its perspectives in order to reason the opposition toward their view point. Each side enters the debate willing to consider the opposition's argument."

David Cole, a professor at Georgetown Law Center and an attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights, fulfills the necessary criteria of ideal argument in his article, "The Ashcroft Raids" which was published in November of 2002. The article mainly attacks the US Government for violating the Constitutional rights of many innocent people through its US Patriot Act, and it effectively provides sound evidence in a well organized manner which supports his stance while remaining open to other view points. Cole's argument is ideal due to the fact that it is well organized and in the article Cole continually backs up his position through specific examples and evidence.

Cole's organization is tailored wonderfully by first providing his stance against the US Patriot act while presenting evidence to back up his claims, and then ends with a more sensitive attitude by remaining open to suggestions by claiming that some action must be taken in order to preserve the principles of our Constitution. The article is begun with a comparison between the government's actions during the Palmer Raids and the September 11 terrorist attacks. Cole quickly asserts his stance on the human rights being violated under the USA Patriot Act by providing evidence of how it had similarities to the response to the 1919 Palmer Raids, a series of bombing attempts at the home of Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer. In response to these bombings the US government swept America detaining thousands of innocent immigrants, who were interrogated and some tortured.

Cole uses prior examples to prove how actions taken under the US Patriot Act are going to be an ineffective and quite possibly a damaging solution to resolving our war against terrorism. The government's current investigation of the September 11 has yet to escalate to the level of the Palmer Raids, but it has shown signs of repeating the same mistakes that the government made in the Palmer Raids as Cole states in his article, "As in the Palmer Raids, the government seems to have dispensed with developing probable cause before arresting individuals, and instead has used pretexts--usually of routine immigration violations--as justification for detaining hundreds of people about whom it has only the faintest suspicion" (530). This violates the Fourth Amendment, the right of a regulated search and seizure, in which it is the right of people to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures, unless there is a probable cause. Cole supports this claim by stating factual evidence, "As of February, despite the thousand-plus arrests, only one person had been charged with involvement in the 9/11 violence: Zaccarias Moussaoui. And he was picked up three weeks before the attacks. Justice officials claim that 10 or twelve detainees may be linked to Al Qaeda, but that leaves hundreds unaccounted for"(530). This is significant since it confirms that the government is straying from the principles of its Constitution during the investigation of the terrorist attacks. This has been established as an ineffective approach in dealing with the situation. It is often said the history repeats itself and that is exactly what Cole is suggesting when comparing these two acts of terrorism.

Next Cole uses specific examples to bring strengthen his stance. He discusses how the government detained suspects in an extremely secretive manner, and after November 5, 2002 the justice department stopped announcing the running tally (of detainees) to the public due to much criticism over the subject. By the time they had stopped publicly reporting the number of people detained the amount total was 1,147 mainly immigrants. So far most of these people have