Dumas, Joe. “Even Terrorist Should Have a Fair Trial.” www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article163142.asp. The Chattanoogan, 14 November 2009. Web. 15 November 2009 <www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article163142.asp>.
Joe Dumas supports giving a “fair trial” to any and all suspected terrorists. By fair trial, he means a criminal trial by an impartial jury of the state and district were the crime was committed, complete with all the rights accorded to any other defendant. He bases his argument on the Bill of Rights and points out that it says, ”no person,” not “no American citizen” shall be held…”in all criminal prosecutions.” He argues that, as Americans, we must hold ourselves to a higher standard and the dictators of the world who imprison people without a fair trial. “We shouldn’t give the terrorist a fair trial because they deserve it; we should give the terrorist a free trial because we deserve it.” Dumas declares that we are no better than the “bad guys” if we don’t.
Mr. Dumas’s argument will be persuasive to many because it appeals on two levels. By quoting the Bill of Rights he not only appeals to our shared sense of values, but he also communicates the fact that these ideas are not just his; they are based on a much more authoritative source. This association with the Bill of Rights gives his argument more validity and credibility. Secondly, his argument appeals on a emotional level by saying that if we do not provide the suspects with fair trials, we are no better than the dictators who imprison people without giving them a hearing. He attempts to inspire people by saying that, as Americans, we have a high standard for the way we treat all people, not just fellow American citizens.
This article would be helpful to people trying to answer the question, “Should the U.S. Senate have voted, as it did, on October 20, 2009, regarding civilian trials for terrorists?” because it presents an argument that many people hold and it is important to understand and consider all viewpoints. Even though Mr. Dumas’s argument has weaknesses like the fact that it ignores any other options such as military tribunals, it is a persuasive argument because it leaves people with the idea that the only patriotic and decent thing to do is to provide the suspects with civilian trials, with all the rights of any other defendant. He is also able to back up his argument with the Bill of Rights.
