Question

What have some critics said of the use of preventive detention?

Answer 1

Critics of preventive detention, particularly at Guantanamo Bay, argue it violates basic human rights and legal protections, and undermines U.S. standing. Legal cases like Rasul v. Bush and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld challenged these practices, reinforcing the importance of due process and habeas corpus rights.

Step-by-step explanation:

Some critics have directly opposed the use of preventive detention, particularly in context with the detentions at Guantanamo Bay during the Bush and Obama administrations. They argue that such practices deny detainees' fundamental rights, such as the right to a fair trial and habeas corpus as protected under Section 9 Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Critics also contend that labeling detainees as 'unlawful combatants' to circumvent the protections offered by international treaties, such as the Geneva Conventions, is unethical and diminishes America's global standing.

Rasul v. Bush (2004) and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) were significant legal challenges to these practices. The former affirmed the federal courts' authority to determine if foreign nationals held at Guantanamo were wrongfully imprisoned, while the latter ruled that U.S. citizens designated as enemy combatants must have due process rights and the ability to challenge their status before an impartial authority.

Critics express concerns that such detainment policies are counterproductive, possibly fueling the recruitment efforts of terrorist organizations, and suggest that a robust civilian justice system is critical for maintaining the rule of law and upholding human rights - reflecting a broader debate on the balance between national security and individual liberties.

Answer 2

Critics say that preventive detention, such as that practiced at Guantanamo Bay, violates due process and international laws like the Geneva Conventions. Supreme Court cases have underscored the importance of legal protections, even for those designated as enemy combatants. The debate intertwines principles of human rights with concerns over national security.

Step-by-step explanation:

Some critics have expressed serious concerns about the use of preventive detention, particularly in the context of the war on terrorism. Critics argue that it denies detainees due process and basic legal protections, which are fundamental human rights enshrined in international law and the U.S. Constitution. Detainees at Guantanamo Bay, labeled as "unlawful combatants," were held indefinitely without formal charges or trials, which directly conflicted with the Geneva Conventions and the rights guaranteed under Section 9 Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution that prohibits holding individuals without facing charges and being brought before a judge.

The Supreme Court case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld exemplified the contention by ruling that military tribunals used to try Guantanamo prisoners violated U.S. federal law and the Geneva Conventions. Moreover, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld determined that U.S. citizens detained as enemy combatants must have due process rights and the ability to challenge their status before an impartial authority. The history of incarceration and the debate over criminal justice practices reflect broader concerns about balancing national security interests against the rights and freedoms of individuals.