Question

Based on what you know of the situation, what arguments could be made against holding suspects without allowing for a proper trial? What argument could be made for holding suspected terrorists without formally charging them with crimes and giving them a day in US court?

Answer 1

A good answer should contain the following:

Possible Answers:

Arguments against

We would be violating our own legal standards by not giving these people a free and fair trial.

Offering open trials would prove to the rest of the world that we have a fair and open society.

It is morally right to give each person accused of a crime a chance to defend themselves.

Arguments for

These people are dangerous and should not be allowed in the United States

The suspects were captured in battle zones and should be treated as enemy fighters, not criminals.

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer 2

The correct answer is: violation of individual liberties, and the violation of the national and international laws.

As much as the government has plausible for doing it so, as we look back at the history of terrorist attacks, the government would argue the indefinite detention without, considering it aa form of prevention. If we know the human rights we will realize the most viable and obvious argument for being against that type of detention is the violation of national and international laws about the individual liberties. That's when there is no evidence of crime and when the individual does not represent national threat. It may be controversial the way government tries to deal with issues like that, but international organizations has made very clear their points about