The United States Constitution and Homeland Security - Essay Example

The United s Constitution and Homeland Security Homeland Security Related Policy One of the most recent homeland security related policy is the change in immigration policy, permitting certain young people to stay in the United States (Washington Post, 2012, p.1). Under this policy, individuals who came to the US as young children and are able to meet the guidelines can “request consideration of deferred action for a period of two years, subject to renewal, and would then be eligible for work authorization” (US Citizenship Immigration Services, 2013, p. 1). Deferred action refers to “a discretionary determination to defer removal action of an individual as an act of prosecutorial discretion” but which does not give such individual a lawful status. The following have been guidelines for those eligible under the policy: “1. Were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012; 2. Came to the United States before reaching your 16th birthday; 3. Have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, up to the present time;   4. Were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making your request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS; 5. Entered without inspection before June 15, 2012, or your lawful immigration status expired as of June 15, 2012; 6. Are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and 7. Have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety” (US Citizenship Immigration Services, n.d., p. 1). The reason for this policy is that such individuals were not viewed as a threat to the “national security or public safety” (Washington Post, 2012, p.1). The US Citizenship Immigration Services has also presented samples of documents in order to meet the stated guidelines (US Citizenship Immigration Services, 2013, p. 1). No assurance however is provided by the Department of Homeland Security that such request for deferred action would be allowed nor does it confer any “substantive right, immigration status” or pave the way for one’s citizenship (Washington Post, 2012, p.1). This policy was based on the so-called “prosecutorial discretion” or that President may not enforce statutes if he disagrees with it (Delahunty & Yoo, 2013, p. 783). The statute referred to here is the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101-1537 (2006)” (Delahunty & Yoo, 2013, p. 783). This was based on the the reasoning that the President had no responsibility to defend or to enforce federal statutes if he considers the same as unconstitutional (Devins & Prakash, 2012, p. 509). Devins and Prakash explain the legal principles upon which such policy was based. They explain that there is no provision under the Constitution which entreats “the President to either subordinate his constitutional vision to the courts or serve as the mouthpiece of Congress before the courts” (Devins & Prakash, 2012, p. 509). First, they stressed on the President’s duty to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” under U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 8 (Devins & Prakash, 2012, pp. 509-510). Secondly, they explain that the Constitution has never intended that only one branch is the “supreme expositor” (Devins & Prakash, 2012, p. 522). Finally, they stressed that the Faithful Execution Clause pertain only to laws which are constitutional, not to those “purporting to be law” or unconstitutional laws (Devins & Prakash, 2012, p. 522). Aside from the said principles, a historical basis was used to defend such policy. They relayed that Thomas Jefferson rendered the Sedition Act as nullity as he believed that criminalizing the criticisms on federal officers with high ranking positions (Alien and Sedition Act of 1798, ch. 74, §§ 1–3, 1 Stat. 596, 596–97) was outside of Congress’ powers and that the same disregarded the First Amendment (Elliot, 1891, pp. 540, 541), hence did not enforce nor defend the same (Devins & Prakash, 2012, p. 514). He pardoned convicts (Ford, 1897, p. 57), terminated ongoing cases (Ford, 1897, pp. 54, 55, 56) and did not initiate any new case that existed prior to his Administration (Prakash, 2008, pp. 1613, 1664-1666). Another historical basis was in 1865 when Attorney General James Speed, after Abraham Lincoln’s assassination wrote to then President Andrew Johnson it is unconstitutional and void to vest “appointment powers in an assessor” and hence should be disregarded. He claimed that the President can have “his own constitutional conclusions,” until the courts had an authoritative determination of the law (Atty. General, 1865, p. 214). Finally, the Woodrow Wilson Administration discharged Portland Postmaster Frank S. Myers without consent from the Senate contrary to that required under the 1867 Tenure of Office Act required (Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 56 (1926)). The Supreme Court held in this case ruled that the President had power to remove Myers (Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 56 (1926). Despite the explanation made to defend such non-enforcement policy, the explanation does not really provide for a clear legal basis to defend such an action. The US Constitution does not provide for discretion on the President to either enforce or not to enforce a particular law, as it has been assumed that an act passed by Congress is rendered constitutional. And if indeed a law passed is unconstitutional, the courts must first make such a declaration. Nowhere under the Constitution does it provide for the President to decide on the constitutionality of a law as it is basically under the Judicial Branch of government that decides such an issue or controversy. It is understandable though that the executive considered the situation of the young illegal immigrants being minors at the time they came to the country and which cannot be treated in the same way as other immigrants who are considered a threat to national security or public safety. Nevertheless, there is still a procedure to be followed, in that a law must first be declared unconstitutional by the Courts as otherwise, there can be no other duty than to follow and enforce such a law. Legal Process Project 1. The most important institutional power in my opinion is the power to enforce laws or the power to take care that the laws be faithfully executed which, under Section 3 Article II of the United States (US) Constitution is vested with the President. Without this important institutional power, the laws enacted by Congress cannot take effect. And in order to carry out the execution of laws, the President oversees the administration (Williams v. U.S., 42 U.S. 290, 1 How. 290, 11 L. Ed. 135, 1843 WL 5995 (1843)) and can “direct and control United States officers in their duties” (Cunningham v. Neagle, 135 U.S. 1, 10 S. Ct. 658, 34 L. Ed. 55 (1890)). Within the limits of the Constitution and pertinent statutes, the President also has the duty to recommend conditions governing executive agencies in choosing employees and to direct the Attorney General to inform them of the same (International Workers Order v. McGrath, 182 F.2d 368 (D.C. Cir. 1950), judgment affd on other grounds, 341 U.S. 123, 71 S. Ct. 624, 95 L. Ed. 817 (1951)). Aside from this, he also enforces the peace of United States (Cunningham v. Neagle, 135 U.S. 1, 10 S. Ct. 658, 34 L. Ed. 55 (1890); American Civil Liberties Union v. Westmoreland, 323 F. Supp. 1153 (N.D. Ill. 1971)). The said duties of the President in the enforcement of the laws are considered as “executive and political,” which cannot be restrained by the judicial process (State of Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. 475, 18 L. Ed. 437, 1866 WL 9457 (1866); Levy v. Urbach, 651 F.2d 1278 (9th Cir. 1981)). With such important institutional power, the President not only supervises the executive branch of the federal government, he or she also oversees its activities and of the national affairs (Infousa, US Department of State, n.d. p. 1). The most important personal right on the other hand in my opinion, is the right under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution providing that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. This sets a limit to the powers of the government especially where personal interests are involved (Allbright, 1993, p. 20). The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment guarantees every person the equal protection of the laws, in that “all persons similarly situated should be treated alike” (International Science & Technology Institute, Inc. v. Inacom Communications, Inc., 106 F.3d 1146 (4th Cir. 1997); Buchanan v. City of Bolivar, Tenn., 99 F.3d 1352, 114 Ed. Law Rep. 25, 1996 FED App. 0352P (6th Cir. 1996); Philips v. Perry, 106 F.3d 1420 (9th Cir. 1997), as amended, (Apr. 18, 1997)). This important right invokes “the rule of law” concept as well as the Constitutional “guarantee of equal protection” for the government to be impartial to those seeking its assistance (Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 116 S. Ct. 1620, 134 L. Ed. 2d 855, 109 Ed. Law Rep. 539 (1996)). The Due Process Clause gives effect to the rest of the Constitution, by not only requiring the executive branch to abstain from divesting the public of their liberty without permission, but also entailing Congress not to grant such authorization or permission except under “a law that respects all of the rights enshrined in the Constitution” (Hyman, 2013, p. 239). Hence, right under the Fifth Amendment is from where other rights under the Constitution emanates from, giving a limitation to the government in its exercise of power. The institutional power which I think should be removed is the “Migration or Importation Clause under Section 9, Article I of the US Constitution which provides that, “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.” This prevents Congress from forbidding “the importation of slaves into any of the original states” which was inclined to accept them for a period of time until 1808 (U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 1). When such period expired, most states eventually enacted laws forbidding such importation of slaves (Du Bois, 1896, pp. 71-74). This institutional power is already obsolete since Amendment XIII Section 1 prohibits the existence of slavery. The right that should also be removed is that stated under Amendment III providing that “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” This is an outdated provision which was then intended to counter the British military practice of “quartering soldiers” in the homes of colonists. (US Senate, n.d., p.1). As commented in one case, the constitutional right to privacy is broad enough to include the Third Amendment (Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965), as cited in Dugan, 2009, p. 555). The additional institutional power which would be relevant and should be added is the power of congress to promote full respect for human rights and laws concerning environmental protection. The said additional power should uphold the various international conventions and treaties to which the United States is a signatory. Being part of the international community, the United States through Congress should contribute to the realization of such objectives. On the other hand, the additional right which should be included is the right of the people to information on matters of public concern, subject to limitations that may be provided by law. These information which pertain to official acts, decisions made or transactions which are made basis for any government policy, should be afforded to the public in order that they may participate and be knowledgeable of matters concerning them and their government. 2. One Homeland Security issue is the security of borders to address the transnational threats (White House, n.d., p. 1). Issued involving immigration is included in the security of the US borders (White House, n.d., p. 1). A song that somewhat raises this issue on migration is the song entitled “Paper Planes” by M.I.A. and Diplo (Wikipedia, n.d., p.1). The song is mainly about the family history of M.I.A. and her disappointment at the US government in refusing to grant her a working visa in 2006 to “record her second album” despite having a number of previous travels to the US (Maksoud, n.d., p. 1). Her frustration also stems from being part of the “US Homeland Security Risk List” after her album’s release in 2006 because of the lyrics of her song which was said to be politically charged (Maksoud, n.d., p. 1). M.I.A. explains that the worst thing to say is “What I wanna do is come and get your money” (Wikipedia, n.d., p.1). She also discusses that, People don’t really feel like immigrants or refugees contribute to culture in any way. That they’re just leeches that suck from whatever. So in the song I say “All I wanna do is [sound of gun shooting and reloading, cash register opening] and take your money.” I did it in sound effects. Its up to you how you want to interpret. America is so obsessed with money, I’m sure they’ll get it (Wagner, 2008, p. 1). She further added that the gunshots and cash register played at the songs chorus can either be applied on a street level with someone robbing money or someone selling guns and generating money, since selling weapons and the manufacture of guns can be considered as the leading “moneymaker in the world.” (Collis, 2008, p.1). Another pop culture that features homeland security issues is the television series “The Agency” shown in CBS television. This showcases the CIA’s workings and missions (Flannigan, 2010, p.1). The show explored on the current international affairs and the conduct of ethical conflicts intrinsic in the intelligence work (Golden Map, n.d., p.1). In its pilot episode, the show recreated CIA assigned with the “War on Terror” after the terrorist organization of Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, plans its “lethal attack on the west” (Golden Map, n.d., p.1). The show also featured Leaked Classified Information, Anthrax, Congressional Inquiries, Assassinations and Terrorism which were basically homeland security issues and matters taken up after the 9/11 (Flannigan, 2010, p.1). Hence, as evidence by such representations and dramatic re-enactments, “the terrorist is a central figure in much of popular culture” (Recuber, 2009, p. 158) presenting Homeland security concerns. 3. Two of the Pre-9/11 Homeland Security Events/Threats include: a. Creation of the U.S. Commission on National Security of the 21st Century in July 1998, or the Hart-Rudman Commission. The Commission released its first report on September 1999 containing findings which were said to be prophetic. The report contained “warnings of America’s increasing vulnerability to attacks on the homeland, as well as the emergence of a radically different security environment” (Homeland Security and Defense Business Council, 2011, p. 1). Seven months before the 9/11 attacks, the commission released its concluding report and mainly recommended “the creation of a new independent National Homeland Security Agency with responsibility for planning, coordinating, and integrating various government activities involved in homeland security” (Homeland Security and Defense Business Council, 2011, p. 1). Legislation to effect the recommendation was presented in Congress but during that time, no impetus was existing to critically consider it and enact a law thereby (Homeland Security and Defense Business Council, 2011, p. 1). Thus, after six months, almost 3,000 innocent people in America were killed by terrorists and stirring up the debate (Homeland Security and Defense Business Council, 2011, p. 1). b. An attack on the U.S. Navy destroyer Cole was made on October 12, 2000 through the use of a small boat loaded with explosives, while the ship stopped in the harbor of Aden, Yemen for a brief refueling (Perl, 2001, p. 1). Seventeen (17) crew members were killed and thirty-nine (39) others were wounded as a result of the suicide terrorist attack, and left the ship in a seriously damaged condition (Perl, 2001, p. 1). The pieces of evidence gathered suggest of a possible connection to a terrorist network under Usama bin Ladin performed by Islamic militants (Perl, 2001, p. 1). Investigations were done by the FBI, Defense Department, and Navy to establish culpability for such an attack and to revisit procedures (Perl, 2001, p. 1). A Department of Defense special panel conducted review thereof, and on January 9, 2001, a report was issued avoiding blame but established important inadequacies in the “training and intelligence” to secure the ship against terrorist attacks (Perl, 2001, p. 1). Then Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, on January 23, 2001, announced their intentions to conduct an investigation on the said incident (Perl, 2001, p. 1). The said attack raised significant issues including “(1) procedures used by the Cole and other U.S. forces overseas to protect against terrorist attacks; (2) intelligence collection, analysis, and dissemination as it relates to potential terrorist attacks; and (3) U.S. anti-terrorism policy and how the U.S. should respond to this attack” (Perl, 2001, p. 1). Questions related to “intelligence collection, analysis, and dissemination” and especially the U.S. anti-terrorism policy as a whole were raised (Perl, 2001, p. 1). Concerns regarding FBI’s role “in overseas counter-terrorism investigations” and the appropriateness of being a front liner in “overseas investigations of terrorist attacks” were also drawn up. These two significant events/threats are similar to the homeland security events that raise major concerns on the US policy on anti-terrorism. It raised the awareness of not to taking for granted reports by concerned agencies and events taking place that concerns the US. 4. a). President Obama is empowered to order a military attack against Scorpions as he “has the power to recognize the existence of a state of war, (Matthews v. McStea, 91 U.S. 7, 23 L. Ed. 188 (1875)). Further, if war is caused by the “invasion of a foreign nation,” the President would not only be authorized, but is obliged to resist such force by force, and “he is bound to accept the challenge without waiting for special legislative authority” (The Amy Warwick, 67 U.S. 635, 17 L. Ed. 459 (1862)). Being the Commander in Chief, the President is empowered to instruct the military forces’ movements placed under his command, and engage them in the way he deems most effective in harassing, conquering and overcoming the enemy.” (Fleming v. Page, 50 U.S. 603, 9 How. 603, 13 L. Ed. 276 (1850)). And although it is the Congress that has power to declare war under Article I § 8 clause 11, of the Constitution (Holtzman v. Schlesinger, 414 U.S. 1316, 94 S. Ct. 8, 38 L. Ed. 2d 28 (1973)), if the “United States Armed Forces are introduced (1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances; (2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or (3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation, the President must then submit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate within 48 hours a written report stating the circumstances requiring the United States Armed Forces’ introduction, the constitutional and legislative basis/authority, and the approximate scope and period of such hostilities or involvement (50 U.S.C.A. § 1543(a)). The President is required within sixty calendar days after the report has been submitted or required to be submitted whichever is earlier, to conclude the United States Armed Forces’ use unless (1) there is a declaration of war by Congress or they have “enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces,” (2) the sixty-day period has extended by law, or (3) the President is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States (50 U.S.C.A. § 1544(b)). Further, under the Authorization for Use of Military Force, “the the President can act anywhere he determines the enemy to be - to include the continental United States - thereby imposing no geographic limitations on the use of force (Geltzer, 2011, p. 94) which is currently being applied by the Obama Administration (Hollywood, 2013, p. 8). Further, the Obama Administration banks upon the “inflexible notion of what constitutes an ‘imminent’ attack,” wherein the US has consistently held in accordance with the customary international law that “a state may employ force in self-defense if in addition to being attacked, an armed attack is determined to be imminent” (Bovarnick, 2011, p. 40). Applying this, “a state is not required to absorb the ‘first hit’ before it can resort to the use of force in self-defense to repel an imminent attack” (Bovarnick, 2011, p. 40). Hence, given the scenario, the attack of the Scorpions may be considered as an imminent attack and thus President Obama may employ such force for its self-defense. b). The transfer of detained prisoners in the US to another country such as the Saudi Arabia for questioning is called Extraordinary Rendition. The U.S. public policy allows such practice which started since the Bush Administration after the September 11, 2001 attacks (Murray, 2011, p. 15). The reason for applying such a policy is “to remove terrorists from the streets and inhibit their ability to plan and execute terrorist operations” (Murray, 2011, p. 15). One argument against such policy is that it “completely undermines greater U.S. foreign policy goals, is not in the spirit of U.S. and international law, and is linked directly with the torture of detainees” (Murray, 2011, p. 16). Further, it violates the U.S. treaty obligation under Article III of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment which clearly states that “[n]o State Party shall expel, return (refouler) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture” (Human Rights Web, n.d., p. 1). Nevertheless, such policy may still be considered lawful if the US has taken steps to ensure that the place where the detainee shall be transferred will not subject the latter to torture. Otherwise, if the US has prior knowledge of such practice of torture and yet still transferred the detainee to such place, then the practice would be rendered unlawful. c). Detained soldiers currently have access the federal court system. Previously under the Bush Administration, these detained soldiers or prisoners were considered as enemy combatants which they opined not entitled to the Geneva Convention Protections (Jurist, 2013, p. 1). They were tried as war criminals under the military commissions (Jurist, 2013, p. 1). However, this practice was challenged by the detainees questioning their status as “enemy combatants” and contending that “the military commissions lacked jurisdiction,” hence, the same violates the Geneva Convention (Jurist, 2013, p. 1). Commission Order No. 1 was then revised and defined the commission procedures sometime in August 2005, and thereafter, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 was passed by Congress which Act imposed “jurisdictional limitations on the federal courts” in examining military commissions (Jurist, 2013, p. 1). The US Supreme Court however struck down such commissions in the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (126 S. Ct. 2749, 165 L. Ed. 2d 723 (U.S. 2006)), stating that the government did not have the authority to establish the same, and failed to justify the deviation from the courts-martial rules and failed to observe Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (Jurist, 2013, p. 1). Furthermore, the ruling of the Supreme Court allowed the “Guantanamo Bay prisoners” to dispute their detention before the US federal court system (Lebrer, n.d., p. 2). A recent ruling of Federal Judge Chief Judge Royce Lamberth stated that “previous rules established by the U.S. District Court in Washington four years ago were working well and would continue to govern lawyers access to Guantanamo prisoners” and that “In the case of Guantanamo detainees, access to the courts means nothing without access to counsel” (Sutton, 2012, p. 1). Hence, access to the federal court system by such detainees may be had. d). A military tribunal or commission, as opposed to a regular civilian criminal court, has military officers acting both as judge and jury (Constitutional Rights Foundation, n.d., p.1). The guilt is decided after having a hearing and “by a vote of the commissioners” (Constitutional Rights Foundation, n.d., p.1). As opposed to a jury, a decision need not be unanimous (Constitutional Rights Foundation, n.d., p.1). “The first recorded use of military commissions” was during the Mexican-American War in 1847 (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 US. 557, 590 (2006); Winthrop, 1920, p. 832). General Winfield Scott who was then disturbed with the increasing “acts of lawlessness committed by the indigenous population” of Mexicans “who could not be tried under the Articles of War” and without any other available tribunal, General Scott then “established a military commission to try offenses against the law of war” (Winthrop, 1920, p. 832). Military commissions were also used broadly during the Civil War (Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 124 (1866)). Currently, the Obama Administration continues to use military commissions reasoning that it would protect “sensitive sources and methods for intelligence gathering,” it would guard the “safety and security of participants,” and allow the production of evidence from the field that may not “be effectively presented in federal courts” (Goldsmith, 2012, p. 1). e). According to news reports, the National Security Agency spies on every US citizen without any warrant. William Binney who was a whistleblower as the Agency’s workings explained that there is a top-secret surveillance program unknown to the public that “can track electronic activities—phone calls, emails, banking and travel records, social media—and map them to collect ‘all the attributes that any individual has’ in every type of activity and build a profile based on that data” (Kelley, 2012, p. 1). The objective of such program is “to monitor what people are doing and who they are doing it with” (Kelley, 2012, p. 1). Since this in itself is an intrusion to the right to privacy of the US citizens, military participation in this program would all the more be inappropriate. f). If the US is going to attack the Scorpions, as above-mentioned, they can also employ force in self-defense when there is a determination that an armed attack imminent, without waiting that the US first hit them (Bovarnick, 2011, p. 40). g). The US Constitution provides the structure of the US government under a federal system of government with particular powers given to the national government and the other powers “reserved to the states” (Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d., p.1). It provides for the three branches consisting of the executive, legislative and judicial branches along with their respective functions, provides for the separation of powers and the checks and balances so that no branch of government may be subordinated to the other branches (Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d., p.1). It outlines the procedure on how to amend the Constitution. Finally, it contains the bill of rights which serves as a limitation to the powers of the government to respect individual freedoms. h). In my opinion, the most powerful branch is currently the executive branch of government. Since the 9/11, there have been activities specifically pertaining to war powers and anti-terrorism that were decided and implemented mainly by the executive branch of the government without the permission of Congress. The so-called War on Terror has brought about US military activities in other parts of the world even without the Congress calling for a declaration of war in those areas. Activities with respect to spying on its own citizens have also been conducted without any legislative support or judicial action stopping such programs of the executive for being an intrusion to privacy. Such incidents only point to how the executive branch can become a powerful branch of government, without sufficient check and balance of the other branches of the government. i). AN ACT To protect the rights of individuals, to deter human rights violations while in the performance of Counter-Terrorism programs/activities, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS. (a) SHORT TITLE–This Act may be cited as the "Individual Rights Protection Act of 2013." SECTION 2. DEFINITION OF TERMS (a) Human Rights Violation – A human rights violation shall include, but not limited to the following acts or omissions in the performance of Counter-Terrorism programs/activities committed by persons acting in an official capacity and/or agents of the State: 1. Any search, arrest and/or detention without a valid search warrant or a warrant of arrest issued by a civilian court of law, including warrantless arrest or detention or any deprivation of liberty carried out pursuant to a Counter-Terrorism program/activity; 2. Any commission by a person acting in an official capacity and/or agent of the State of physical injury, torture, killing, harassment, deprivation of liberty or other similar acts on any person peacefully exercising his or her civil or political rights, including freedom of speech, assembly or organization, religion, and/or right to petition the government for redress of grievances; 3. Involuntary disappearance caused upon a person who was arrested, detained, abducted against his/her will or otherwise deprived of his/her liberty; 4. Tapping or recording any private communication without a valid search warrant; 5. Any force or intimidation causing the person to leave the United States. SECTION 3. COMPENSATION FUND. (Tañada, n.d., p. 2) Reference List 50 U.S.C.A. § 1543(a). 50 U.S.C.A. § 1544(b)). Alien and Sedition Act of 1798, ch. 74, §§ 1–3, 1 Stat. 596, 596–97. Allbright, M. P. (1993). Government Taking of Private Water Rights. Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, 39, 20. American Civil Liberties Union v. Westmoreland, 323 F. Supp. 1153 (N.D. Ill. 1971). Attorney General (1865). Appointment of Assistant Assessors of Internal Revenue. Opinion of Attorney General, 11, 209, 212–14. Bovarnick, J.A. et al. (2011). Law of War Deskbook. U.S. Army, Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, International and Operational Law Department, 40. Buchanan v. City of Bolivar, Tenn., 99 F.3d 1352, 114 Ed. Law Rep. 25, 1996 FED App. 0352P (6th Cir. 1996). Collis, C. (2008). M.I.A., Paper Planes, and coasting to fame on Pineapple Express. Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved from http://popwatch.ew.com/2008/08/26/mia-interview/ Constitutional Rights Foundation (n.d.). Military Tribunals. Retrieved from http://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-to-terrorism/military-tribunals.html#.UVBdbhdHKEY Cunningham v. Neagle, 135 U.S. 1, 10 S. Ct. 658, 34 L. Ed. 55 (1890). Delahunty, R.J. & Yoo, J.C. (2013). Dream On: The Obama Administrations Nonenforcement Of Immigration Laws, The Dream Act, and The Take Care Clause. Texas Law Review, 91, 781-856. Devins, N. & Prakash, S. (2012). The Indefensible Duty to Defend. Columbia Law Review, 112, 507-576. Du Bois, W.E.B. (1896). The Suppression of the African Slave-Trade 71-74 (Schocken Books 1969). Dugan, J. (2009). When Is A Search Not A Search? When Its A Quarter: The Third Amendment, Originalism, and NSA Wiretapping. Georgetown Law Journal, 97, 555. Elliot, J. (1891). Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and 1799, in The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co. , pp. 540, 541. Encyclopedia Britannica. (n.d.). The American Presidency. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/presidents/article-233792 Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 124 (1866). Flanigan, J.H. (2010). Homeland Security Watch. “News and analysis of critical issues in homeland security.” Retrieved from http://www.hlswatch.com/2010/04/15/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of-homeland-security-tv/ Fleming v. Page, 50 U.S. 603, 9 How. 603, 13 L. Ed. 276 (1850). Ford, P.L. (1897). Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston (Nov. 1, 1801), in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, p. 57. Ford, P.L. (1897). Letter from Thomas Jefferson to William Duane (May 23, 1801), in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, pp. 54, 55. Ford, P.L. (1897). Message from Thomas Jefferson to the Senate, in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, p. 56. Geltzer, J.A. (2011). Decisions Detained: The Courts Embrace of Complexity in Guantánamo-Related Litigation. Berkeley Journal of International Law, 29, 94, 98. Goldenmap (n.d.). The Agency. Retrieved from http://en.goldenmap.com/The_Agency_(2001_TV_series) Goldsmith, J. (2012). How Obama Learned To Love Military Commissions. Slate. Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/03/military_commissions_now_have_broad_political_support_from_republicans_and_democrats_alike_.html Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965). Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (126 S. Ct. 2749, 165 L. Ed. 2d 723 (U.S. 2006). Hollywood, D.M. (2013). Redemption Deferred: Military Commissions In The War On Terror And The Charge Of Providing Material Support For Terrorism. Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, 36, 8. Holtzman v. Schlesinger, 414 U.S. 1316, 94 S. Ct. 8, 38 L. Ed. 2d 28 (1973). Homeland Security and Defense Business Council (2011). The 9/10/11 Project. Retrieved from http://homelandcouncil.org/pdfs/digital_library_pdfs/hsdbc91011projectevolutionofhls.pdf Human Rights Web. (n.d.). Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Retrieved from http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html Hyman, A. T. (2013). The Due Process Plank. Seton Hall Law Review, 43, 229. International Science & Technology Institute, Inc. v. Inacom Communications, Inc., 106 F.3d 1146 (4th Cir. 1997). International Workers Order v. McGrath, 182 F.2d 368 (D.C. Cir. 1950). Jurist (n.d.). Guantanamo Bay. Retrieved from http://jurist.org/feature/2012/01/guantanamo.php Kelley, M. (2012). NSA Whistleblower Details How The NSA Has Spied On US Citizens Since 9/11. Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/nsa-whistleblower-william-binney-explains-nsa-surveillance-2012-8 Lebrer, J. (n.d.). Lesson Plan: The Rights Of Detainees At Guantanamo Bay. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/teachers/lessonplans/world/guantanamo_key.pdf Levy v. Urbach, 651 F.2d 1278 (9th Cir. 1981). Maksoud, K. (n.d.). "M.I.A. - Paper Planes". This Is Fake DIY. Retrieved from http://www.thisisfakediy.co.uk/articles/singles/mia-paper-planes/ Matthews v. McStea, 91 U.S. 7, 23 L. Ed. 188 (1875). Murray, M.J. (2011). Extraordinary Rendition and U.S. Counter-Terrorism Policy. The Journal of Strategic Security, 4(3), 15. Retrieved from http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1100&context=jss&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com.ph%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3DUS%2Bpublic%2Bpolicy%2Ballow%2Brendition%2Bprogram%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D3%26cad%3Drja%26ved%3D0CD0QFjAC%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarcommons.usf.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1100%2526context%253Djss%26ei%3DUU5QUb_4AqaSiQfx5oG4DQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNEilWGSbUET-9Wk842bigFUJvdR6g%26bvm%3Dbv.44158598%2Cd.aGc#search=%22US%20public%20policy%20allow%20rendition%20program%22 Perl, R. (2001). Terrorist Attack on USS Cole: Background and Issues for Congress. The Navy Department Library. Retrieved from http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/usscole_crsreport.htm Philips v. Perry, 106 F.3d 1420 (9th Cir. 1997), as amended, (Apr. 18, 1997)). Prakash, S.B. (2008). The Executive’s Duty to Disregard Unconstitutional Laws. Georgetown Law Journal, 96, 1613, 1664–66. Recuber, T. (2009). The Terrorist As Folk Devil And Mass Commodity: Moral Panics, Risk, And Consumer Culture. Journal of the Institute of Justice and International Studies, 158. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 116 S. Ct. 1620, 134 L. Ed. 2d 855, 109 Ed. Law Rep. 539 (1996). State of Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. 475, 18 L. Ed. 437, 1866 WL 9457 (1866). Sutton, J. (2012). U.S. judge blocks new restrictions on Guantanamo lawyers. Reuters. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/06/us-usa-guantanamo-idUSBRE8851E720120906 Tañada, L. (n.d.) Compensation Act to Victims of Human Rights Violation. Retrieved from http://www.congress.gov.ph/download/basic_15/HB00054.pdf The Amy Warwick, 67 U.S. 635, 17 L. Ed. 459 (1862). US Citizenship and Immigration Services (2013). Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Process. Retrieved from http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f2ef2f19470f7310VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f2ef2f19470f7310VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD#guidelines U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 1. US Department of State (n.d.). Infousa: Outline of US Government. Retrieved from http://infousa.state.gov/government/overview/ch3.html US Senate. (n.d.). Constitution. Retrieved from http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm Wagner, A. (2008). "Life in Exile: The nomad noise of MIA’s Kala". The Fader. Retrieved from http://www.thefader.com/2007/08/07/video-interview-mia-jimmy/ Washington Post (2012). Homeland Security Immigration Announcement. Retrieved from http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-06-15/politics/35460304_1_immigration-policy-security-or-public-safety-secretary-napolitano White House (n.d.). Homeland Security. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/homeland-security Wikipedia (n.d.). Paper Planes. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_Planes Williams v. U.S., 42 U.S. 290, 1 How. 290, 11 L. Ed. 135, 1843 WL 5995 (1843). Winthrop, W. (1920). Military Law and Precedents. Government Printing Office. 1288. Read More