No Due Process :: essays research papers

not long ago the Korea Herald published a letter extolling the virtues of American justice as applied in the case of the deuce American soldiers who drove a military track vehicle over two Korean middle school girls, killing them. In comparing the American and Korean systems of justice, the writer suggested circumspectly that the American system, being more intent delinquent to its emphasis on process, is superior. The premise of the argument was that if the judicial processes real over time through planning and trial and error be followed, Americans see justice as having been make, with egress particular regard to the outcome, whereas Koreans first put up that damage has occurred and base their judgment of whether or not justice has been done on whether or not some reparation has been made. While not stated explicitly, the upshot of this is that Americans presume innocence and Koreans presume guilt. I concur in many ways with the writers take on the American system, since it appeared to emphasize the role of the constitution and the rule of law but, having approximately no knowledge the Korean legal system, I was skeptical of his conclusions, oddly given the letters evident nationalist tinges, so it was with relate that I read another writers well-written and thoughtful, though as well emotional response which the paper published not long afterward.Now, a few months later, the original, presumably American writers letter seems near laughable in the face American policy. Where is the supposed regard for process, or, if you like, due process? I, an American (surprise), scram read some things that scare the Orwell out of me.Using a predator drone, the United States military launched a rocket that destroyed a carload of terrorists in Afghanistan. Fine. War on terrorism, etcetera Maybe, if we try really hard, we can overlook the fact that we, the general public, have no way of knowing whether the people (PEOPLE) in the car were terrorists or wedding party-goers. It turns out, though, that an American citizen was killed in that very very(prenominal) car. In the same article in which I read of this high-tech car bombing, tuition cited as coming from the Bush administration stated that there was no constitutional issue surrounding the murder of this American. Why not? Because he was an enemy combatant. Therefore, apparently, he was not eligible for, did not deserve, the constitutional protection, the self-assertion of innocence, guaranteed by the United States Constitutionthe same presumption of innocence afforded the American soldiers who ran over two Korean girls on a country road.