In this case we are talking about the right to a fair trial of terrorism suspects and the use of torture. Is the use of torture on terrorist suspects constitutional or not? This debate began after 9/11 and after the government implemented several anti-terrorism measures, where the justification was placed under the veil of utilitarianism. These measures override many individual rights, including due process rights and the right not to be tortured (Pollock, 2010). This elimination of due process for suspects was “so that detainees and aliens could be held without charge for extended periods during investigative detentions” (Pollock, 2010, p.487). Given what the Supreme Court has ruled in many cases, including Brown v. Mississippi, that severe coercion goes against due process rights, why is this fact different regarding terrorist suspects? Part of the reasoning has to do with the association that terrorist suspects are not covered by due process rights and therefore torture is a valid method of coercion. On the other hand, it has been argued that “an individual needs due process rights because of the extraordinary power of the state against the weakness of an individual” (Pollock, 2010, P. 490). Furthermore, the United States is “bound by several international treaties that prohibit” the use of torture (Hickey, 2010, p. 78). While the Geneva Convention may address the humane treatment of prisoners of war, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is more general where "no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" (Hickey , 2010, page 79). The United States has used its powerful repetition to avoid any consequences that might arise from failure to comply with the laws contained in the treaties. It doesn't help that there is little to no action taken against countries that do not follow treaty guidelines (Hickey, 2010). The United States has used the following as a way to justify the use of torture on terrorist suspects, despite the opposition of the constitution, international treaties and Supreme Court rulings. References: Brown v. Mississippi - Meaning. (2010). Retrieved July 27, 2010, from Law Library - American Law and Legal Information: http://law.