For the sake of National Security this document has been deleted.
We are curious as to how you would expect to grant someone a fair trial after depriving them of due process terrorist or not. This would seem to be analogous of breaking a man’s arm, ever so gently placing him up a tree, and then claiming innocence in regards to the extensive injuries he most likely – but may not – receive from the fall when he tried to extricate himself.
And a clarification of point 22 please; because the transfer of land seems to be tied to the definition of the word just we are curious as to who makes such a determination. Does your nation host an independent judiciary or are your citizens to trust that the government will abide. Perhaps for the sake of clarity this should not be held up as a fundamental freedom. Holding up sacrosanct rights like the freedom of speech to a clause which allows the government to take as it wills – supposing just compensation – does seem perplexing.
Yes there will be a few contradictions that will have to be worked out, and I fixed the ones you pointed out.
As for the seizure of land, in the united states if the goverment wants your land you have to give it up, but you will be fairly recompensated, yet we also have the sacrosanct rights like freedom of spech, and this is only for land, the goverment may not take any other personal belongings, that would be a blantant breach of civil rights.