There is very little water. Due to that animals were not as populated nor were humans in that area.
This website says that they lived in structures called longhouses.
-Longhouses were long rectangular homes. Longhouses were made by building a frame from saplings, or young trees. They were then covered with bark sewn together. There was a long hallway with rooms on both sides. Sleeping platforms, covered with deerskin, lined each wall. There were also shelves for storing baskets, pots, and pelts. Pelts are the skins of animals with the fur attached. Several families would live in the long house, but the families were related to each other.-
source: <em>http://www.germantownbulldogs.org/pages/Indian%20Project/woodland2.html</em>
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
I know for sure Russia, I believe Poland...
Answer: one answer latent preferences.
Explanation: