Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
The Anti-Terrorism and Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996 was intended to speed up the process of prosecuting terrorist attack suspects (Haines 69). Nevertheless, the law has a number of controversial provisions such as its dictate against waiver of deportation application by a criminal alien. This essay is a critical analysis of the controversial provisions of the Anti-Terrorism and Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996. The author also gives an explanation on why it provision on “providing material support to terrorists” is troubling.
The first controversial provision of the Anti-Terrorism and Death Penalty Act is title I and its amendment on the federal habeas-corpus procedures. The act dictates a one year limitation for convicted victims to file habeas-corpus suit (Wesley, Greene, Galgan, and El-Ayouty 41). This can only be equated to denying justice to suspected terrorist criminals. Still on this provision is the requirement that compromises chances of executing justice for convicted criminals through second and successive habeas-corpus petitions. This means that victims of unjust executions sentences have limited chances of escaping death penalty provided the first habeas-corpus petition is errand (Wesley, Greene, Galgan, and El-Ayouty 41).
Another controversial provision of the Anti-Terrorism and Death Penalty Act is title IV and its removal of the due process procedures in the deportation of an alien terrorist criminal. This provision allows law enforcement agencies to present secretly and illegally acquired evidence in court during deportation hearings (Haines 70). This is a contradiction of the constitutional provisions of the Fifth Amendment on due process procedures which are equally applicable to all, including aliens. Still found in this provision is the fact that the act allows for deportation of aliens just by being a member of a designated organization (Haines 74). This negates the constitutional provisions which prohibit conviction based on guilty by association. Criminal aliens can be detained indefinitely and with no legal counsel pending their deportation hearing; a contradiction of the right to a fair and just trial.
The last controversial provision of the Anti-Terrorism and Death Penalty Act is title III. This section terms providing material support to designated terrorist organization regardless of the intent a criminal offense (Haines 75). The section in particular bars any American citizen from making financial contributions even in support of a legal and peaceful involvement of the group. This is further complicated by the fact that it does not require the government to prove the individuals intended aim. However, this is a contradiction of the first amendment provisions as it is seen as a restriction of an individual’s freedom of speech and association, thus making it unconstitutional.
Any act to deny citizens their right to speech and association should be satisfied with strict scrutiny. This means that the government show clear evidence that the ban is meant for sanctioning certain interest. Just to be stated is that failure to uphold this is a negation of the provisions of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 which protects the right of US citizens to participate in peaceful and humanitarian support fundraising (Haines 83). This is also seen to compromise the political speech freedom of the American citizens when it dictates against expressing by contribution, support for this group.
In conclusion, it is quite evident that the Anti-Terrorism and Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996 is unconstitutional first because it contradiction the first amendment on freedom of speech and association. It also negates the due process procedures provisions of the constitution.
Works cited
Haines, Herbert. Against Capital Punishment: The Anti-Death Penalty Movement in America, 1972-1994. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Wesley, Edward, Greene, FJ, Galgan, GJ, and El-Ayouty, Yassin. Perspectives on 9/11. Westport, CT: Preager, 2004.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.