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
Channel Tunnel
or answer c is what you are looking for
Around 42% of the worlds lumber harvest goes to pulp and paper production. ^^ Glad I could help.
