Question

People detained in battlefields around the world that were suspected of engaging in terroristic activities against the United States were detained at the US military base in Cuba known as Guantanamo Bay. This method of handling suspected terrorists raised outcries about the proper application of laws regarding those accused of crimes. 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

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.

Answer 2

The War on Terror changed many procedures regarding how countries deal with individuals accused of terrorism. Most of these individuals are viewed as enemy combatants. This designation removes said individuals from the protections of the Geneva Convention. They are not entitled to a speedy trial and do not have access to the civil courts and justice system. Most of these individuals are indefinitely detained. Those opposed to these policies argue for the importance of humane  treatment of prisoners and due process.