Discuss whether you are persuaded by the legal arguments made in the letter and whether the President should be able to take this action

Question 1: Review the letter from William E. Moschella, Assistant Attorney General, to the Honorable Pat Roberts, Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence et al. found between pages 641-650. Discuss whether you are persuaded by the legal arguments made in the letter and whether the President should be able to take this action; then comment on whether the nature of Al Qaeda cuts for or against such Presidential action. Include Biblical arguments to support your answer. (200 words minimum)

Question 2: Review Farag v. United States and the ensuing notes. Should race be permitted to be used as a factor in national security investigations, like airport screening? What does the Court in Farag say? Do you agree with the court’s reasoning, legally and politically? What if the TSA adopted a program whereby law enforcement officials were permitted to use behavioral factors—like pacing, failing to make eye contact, overly protective of one’s luggage, etc.—combined with racial and ethnic factors to make a probable cause determination for an arrest at an airport? Would this program be constitutional? Biblical? (250 words minimum)

Question 3:  What did the Courts hold in Reid and Verdugo? That is, generally how does the U.S. Constitution apply outside our borders according to these cases? Are these cases consistent? Do their holdings reflect a textual, formal view of the Constitution or a more practical, malleable view of the Constitution? How should the Constitution apply outside our borders? (Minimum 250 words).

Sample Solution

Question 1: In the letter from William E. Moschella, the legal argument made is that the President has the authority to take action against Al Qaeda under the Congressional authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) in response to the 9/11 attacks. The letter argues that the President has the authority to detain individuals who are a part of or substantially support Al Qaeda and associated forces, even if they are not on a traditional battlefield.

Whether I am persuaded by the legal arguments made in the letter is a matter of interpretation. From a legal perspective, the President does have broad powers under the AUMF, but there are also arguments about the limits of these powers and the potential violation of individual rights. From a biblical perspective, the idea of just war and the protection of innocent life could be seen as supporting the actions taken against Al Qaeda. However, there are also biblical principles of due process and the protection of individual rights that could be seen as conflicting with these actions.

Overall, whether the President should be able to take this action is a complex issue that depends on many factors, including the specific circumstances and the interpretation of the AUMF.

Question 2: In Farag v. United States, the court held that race cannot be the sole factor in national security investigations, but it can be used as a factor in combination with other factors. The court’s reasoning was based on the need to balance national security concerns with individual rights, and the belief that race can be a relevant factor in certain circumstances…