Should race be permitted to be used as a factor in national security investigations, like airport screening?

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

Answer 1: The letter from William E. Moschella argues that the President has the authority to take action against Al Qaeda under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress after the 9/11 attacks. The letter cites various legal precedents to support the President’s authority, including the President’s role as Commander-in-Chief, and the long-standing tradition of Presidents using military force to protect national security.

However, whether the President should be able to take such action is a matter of debate. Some might argue that the AUMF grants the President too much unchecked power, while others might argue that the President needs this power to protect national security in a time of war. From a biblical perspective, one might argue that the President has a duty to protect the nation, as Romans 13 states that the governing authorities have been established by God to maintain order and protect citizens.

As for the nature of Al Qaeda, it cuts against the President’s authority to take action against them. Al Qaeda is a non-state actor, and the laws of war have typically only applied to state actors. This means that the President’s authority to use military force against Al Qaeda is less clear-cut.

Answer 2: The Farag v. United States case dealt with the use of race as a factor in national security investigations, such as airport screening. The Court in Farag held that race can be used as a factor in these investigations, but only as one among many other factors, and that its use must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest.

Legally and politically, this ruling is somewhat controversial. Some might argue that using race as a factor in security screenings is discriminatory and violates equal protection under the law. Others might argue that using race as a factor is necessary to protect national security.

If the TSA were to adopt a program combining behavioral and racial factors to make probable cause determinations for arrests at airports, it could be argued that this program would be unconstitutional. The use of both behavioral and racial factors would likely be seen as overbroad and not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest.

From a biblical perspective, one might argue that all people are equal in the eyes of God and should not be treated differently based on race.

Answer 3: The Reid and Verdugo cases dealt with the application of the U.S. Constitution outside of our borders. In Reid, the Court held that the Constitution applies to U.S. citizens and others within U.S. territory, but does not apply to actions taken outside…Order a customized and more comprehensive answer here