The Pros And Cons Of Detaining Terrorists

In today’s society domestic terrorism is one of the biggest threats to the United States. Some of these recent terrorist attacks include. Domestic Terrorism is when U.S. citizens carry out terrorist acts against other U.S. residents or groups.Many people think that the biggest threat of terrorism to the U.S. is from a foreign country, when in fact, the bigger threat is closer to home. Domestic terrorism is becoming a bigger threat to the U.S. than international terrorism and we need to find a way to prevent these attacks.

Did you know, as American taxpayers, maintaining the prison at Guantánamo has costed $4.8 billion since it had opened in 2002? Well this al back to “ The Global War on Terror” under the Bush administration that,. response to the 9/11 attacks, targeted middle eastern regions of the world;, collecting men from left to right by heavily armed American soldiers. Unfortunately, some of them are destined to pay for another man’s crime by serving time in Guantanamo Bay. Guantanamo Bay, located within a naval base in Cuba, became a facility purposed to hold alleged enemy combatants and terrorists alike. Because of later documented injustices reported against detainees, it gained negative spotlight by both citizens and world leaders. When Obama succeeded in presidency, closing the facility became one of his priorities for a number of reasons.

It is against human rights to detain and place possible terror suspects in detention centers without a trail. In America, everyone has a right to a fair trial even if a suspect could potentially pose a threat to our country. It is in violation to the Fifth Amendment and the essence of American due process and the rule of law. It is also going against what our Founding Fathers originally acclaimed our rights were. I find it unethical and is unconstitutional to have terror suspects detained without a trail.

Some of the people have very strong opinions but not only that also stating facts on why Guantanamo should stay closed.Some of those people are human rights activist who think the detainees should be released from the prison but as Mark LandsBaum states closing Guantanamo bay would be a huge mistake leading to

The United States Government has no problem with getting out on technicalities. Thus it is not surprising that we have the same human rights problems now that we did during the Salem Witch Trials. In Guantanamo Bay, people accused of terrorism are held without conviction for as long as 15 years. The United States Government is allowed to do this without charging the accused because it is not United States territory. Although this may not be morally correct, it certainly serves the purpose of getting people to confess, and holding people that are believed to be a threat to this country. There are plenty of similarities in due process shared between Guantanamo Bay and Salem, Massachusetts.

Our nation’s actions toward seeking justice and preventing any attacks of this scale from happening again came with quick notion, “Less than a week later (following the 9/11 attacks), Congress authorized the President to use military force ‘against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks,” (Yin). In essence, Congress gave the president the ability to use the military to seek out and detain terrorists responsible for 9/11, showing our country’s dedication to ending these attacks and those who initiated them for good. Overall, this tragic event revealed the need for stricter defense regulations against non-state actors (terrorists). For this reason, 9/11 was the catalyst for the beginning of the War on Terror and, consequently, the opening of Guantanamo Bay.

This was not just limited to known terrorists but to citizens arrested under suspicion of treason and even citizens of foreign countries arrested in their own countries and brought to the Bay. Regardless of one’s personal feelings towards those accused of terrorism, we must strive to protect all human rights and make sure those who are guilty are punished not the innocent. When it comes to the war on terrorism, both alien and citizen detainees have lost their rights to Habeas Corpus as well as any Constitutional rights based on the threat of invasion and public safety, nationality, and, in the case of citizens, treason against the States and people of America, but when one looks at American History we see this is neither ethically nor morally

Every person has the right to undergo a judicial hearing to avoid illegal detention. However, if that person poses threat to the society and the state, there are instances that the said right is overseen where these types of people are quickly detained after capturing. The writ of Habeas Corpus gives the rights to the captured people to undergo judicial trial. But there is also an article in the U.S. Constitution that states that the writ of Habeas Corpus can only be lifted if the people being questioned in involved in a rebellion or pose a threat to the safety of the public. That is why the administration of the previous U.S. President Bush detained all of the people whom they tagged as terrorist and were captured in the war on Afghanistan in 2001. The question now is to what extend must be the actions of an individual in order to undergo proper trial hearing or to just be put in imprisonment without any hearings or trials done? The purpose of this paper is to review issues within Habeas Corpus and GITMO, discuss how policies changing over time affect the dynamic state of United States, and how these changes can make a big impact to the future law making and practice of the country that is why this issue must be evaluated and examined.

‘Phycologists find these tactics immoral and beyond torturous, and a ticking time bomb for disaster (O’Donohue).’ Although not everyone disagrees with the tactics Research has shown that these interrogations both have pros and cons. Research from the Phycological association shows that these types of interrogations “betrays trust and human rights, professional ethics and the society's trust (Pope).” For example, many believe that the interrogations break the Miranda rights per the 5th amendment, but others argue that the 5th amendment rights should be reserved only for people holding a valid US citizenship. (Rychlak) Medical ethics of the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba, because these facilities are not on US soil the 5th Amendment rights should also apply to these detainees that are detained, making it a national policy. (Quinn) After the 9/11 attacks congress authorized president Bush to authorize “all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons’ (Worthington).” However, this was quickly shut down by former

This act changed the concept of human rights that constitute the basic foundation of the American constitution and considered to be the essence of American exceptionalism and endanger the land that Jefferson once called “Empire of liberty” . Moreover, the abuse of prisoners in the Guantanamo Bay prison has made a mockery of the American values, which preaches human rights and values on one hand and then flip around to violate them. Despite that these prisoners are foreign nationals in custody outside the sovereign territory of the United States and that they have no rights and protections guaranteed by the Geneva Convention, the US has no right to indefinitely detain these prisoners without any charges. It particularly allowed interference into the rights protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth amendments of the Bill of Rights, directly threatening the freedom of association, information, speech, and the right to legal representation as well as the right to liberty. Thus, this adopted tactic will not only inflame hatred against the US in the world, inspiring more terror attacks rather than preventing them, but also tarnishing the reputation of the United States as a champion of human

What happens when they apprehend and torture an innocent man? Stripping him out of his life and leaving his children fatherless, leaving him heartless. If one were taken from their family, covered by a black hood, only to wake up in a dark room with a couple of strangers yelling at them, beating them, asking odd questions they can’t answer because they had no part in the incidences they are mentioning. How would one feel after the first hour? The first day? The first year? How about 2 years? That’s how long former Guantanamo Bay detainee, Moazzam Begg, was in Guantanamo. Begg was released with no charge due to lack of evidence in 2005. On July 12, 2004, Begg sent a letter addressed to the U.S. Forces Administration at Guantánamo Bay. Its full text was given to his lawyer, Gareth pierce. In his letter Begg says, "I am a law-abiding citizen of the UK, and attest vehemently to my innocence, before God and the law, of any crime — though none has even been alleged". In February, 2002 Beg was apprehended in, Islamabad, Pakistan by Pakistani police. In suspicion of having links with terrorist groups such as the Taliban. He was sent to The Guantanamo Bay detention camp also known as, GTMO. When initially detained he was treated as a prisoner of war, that is until he was determined by a “competent tribunal” as an unlawful combatant. Article 5 of the Third Geneva

President Obama in 2009 showcased an executive order to close Guantanamo bay. He states in section three of this transcript that “The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order.” (Obama, 2009) This meant that people who should not be there or they should be prosecuted somewhere else would leave the compound within a year. With the benefit of hindsight this did not happen like he wanted it too.

Huffington Post posted an article regarding CNN questioning whether or not a terror suspect, whom is also a U.S. citizen, deserves due process or not. From my point of view, I believe this suspect, Ahmad Khan Rahami, deserves due process to the fullest extent. I also believe he should be tried in federal court and not a military tribunal.

Is waterboarding suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay justifiable in order to save American lives? For years since the attacks on 9/11, prisoners suspected of terrorist actions have been treated poorly and taken to bases like Guantanamo Bay where they are interrogated and abused past levels of legality. This is upsetting how the United States government tortures people only suspected of terrorist activity. There have been many incidents where innocent people were accused of terrorist activity and harassed. After the bombing of the Boston Marathon, three innocent muslim men were put in custody to answer some questions on the bombing (Friedersdorf). The innocent men had done nothing wrong but the United States has a history of fighting terrorism in a very forceful way. Is it “okay” to question anyone without legal justification? In the US, the fear of terrorism has

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is originally a naval base that was once used to house detention facilities for Haitian and Cuban refugees fleeing to the United States. It was also used as a refueling station for Navy ships. It was then converted into a high level detention facility to house enemy troops captured in the War on Terror campaign by Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfield. It has three main camps that house the prisoners. These prisoners of war were later referred to as enemy combatants. They were excluded from the prisoner of war statutes of the Geneva Convention because of their involvement in a foreign terrorist organization and therefore earning themselves the title of terrorists. The Guantanamo Bay Detention Center served as the perfect location to send these terrorists. It allowed the United States to strip them of any due process or protection that is provided by US law. Due to its location, being in foreign territory they are only subjected to military law. They are close enough for them to be monitored without interference of intentional agencies or international oversight. Furthermore, the US Government is holding these men without due process because they are deemed too dangerous to be released into the public because of their associations with terrorist organizations and possession of valuable information relating to National Security such as location of key members of a terrorist groups, whereabouts. However, the United States cannot release those