Question

in a 2004 case involving the issue of whether a u.s. citizen accused of terrorist acts is entitled to constitutional protections, the supreme court held that such citizens group of answer choices are protected only if law enforcement officials decide they deserve such protections. do have the right to a judicial hearing. must be handled by military courts. are protected only if they have not been previously convicted of a crime. are protected only if they live in the united states.

Answer 1

The Supreme Court ruled in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that U.S. citizens accused of terrorism are entitled to due process and can challenge their status before an impartial authority. The case of Boumediene v. Bush extended habeas corpus rights to foreign detainees at Guantánamo Bay.

Step-by-step explanation:

In the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), the Supreme Court determined that a U.S. citizen accused of terrorist acts is entitled to constitutional protections, including the rights of due process and the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial authority. Even in the context of national security, constitutional safeguards must not be forsaken. This has been further emphasized through cases such as Boumediene v. Bush (2008), which extended constitutional habeas corpus rights to foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantánamo Bay, rejecting the government's argument that they could be held indefinitely without trial.