In addition to rulings related to due process in trials, the Supreme Court made several rulings highlighting the importance of due process in police detentions in the 20th century. In 1936, the Court ruled that confessions extracted through coercion would not be acceptable as evidences. Initially, the court condemned "police brutality" and later extended it to "psychological as well as physical coercion of prisoners" (Lewis 97). In 1961, in the case of Mapp v. Ohio, the Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on illegal seizure of property was applicable to state laws, affirming that "No illegally seized evidence could be admitted at state criminal trials" (Lewis 98). These rulings were essential in codifying due process in reference to criminal proceedings.

Sometimes, war-related events pressure government officials to review or suspend some of the provisions of the Constitution in relation to persons' rights. The question of due process of detention became a controversial issue after September 11 attacks on the United States. The Administration of George W. Bush suspended the writ of habeas corps for terror suspects locked up in Guantanamo Bay, various prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan, the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, and other secret CIA prisons. The lawyer Alberto Gonzales claimed that some of the provisions of the Geneva Convention on the rights of war prisoners were "quaint" and "obsolete." Due process in dealing with both non-American and American citizens was disrupted in the name of "national security." These decisions by the Bush Administration, however, were bitterly criticized by civil rights lawyers. For example, Ronald...

He argues that the policies that prioritize absolute security at the expense of civil liberties are unjustified. Dworkin also argues that the U.S. Constitutional provisions should be extended to foreign nationals (most of the terror suspects held were Muslims). In times of war, however, the government should try to find a balance between the provisions that guarantee security and those of freedom and civil liberties. The historical cases when the due process was suspended vary from case to case. Abraham Lincoln's decision to suspend the writ of habeas corps remains controversial, while President Roosevelt's executive decision to lock up hundreds of thousands of Japanese-Americans today is widely regarded as illegal, immoral, and unnecessary. Therefore, detention of some highly dangerous terror suspects may be justified but such a practice should be an exception rather than the rule. The Bush Administration made it the rule, which resulted in the rounding up of thousands of innocent persons in many Muslim countries as well as Europe. That is against the U.S. And international laws -- also immoral and counterproductive.
Works Cited

Dworkin, Ronald. "Terror & the Attack on Civil Liberties." New York Review of Books. November 6, 2003.

Lewis,…