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
Let me handle your first question -- always good to do one question at a time here. :-)
Prior to President Theodore Roosevelt, those who preceded him in federal government had tended to side with industry leaders, expecting laborers to fall in line and do the work for the good of the companies. In 1902, when there was a particularly tense strike by coal workers, Roosevelt invited both sides (labor leaders and management leaders) to the White House to negotiate. This was an example of the way he saw the role of government leadership as "steward" to the nation, mediating on behalf of everyone's interests, not just the interests of a powerful small group. His "Square Deal" policies were aimed at making things fair and square for the general public. An example of this would be how much land was set aside under his administration as national forests, national parks, national monuments, etc. He was seeking to protect the use of the land for all Americans' interests, rather than letting corporations tear into any land or forest they wanted in order to grab natural resources.
<span>corn, wheat, and rice.corn, beans, and squash.<span>wheat, oats, and peanuts.</span></span>
Answer:
C) The creation of colonial-controlled legislatures
Explanation:
Part of the 1774 Coercive Acts (known by the colonists as the Intolerable Acts) was the Massachusetts Government Act, which repealed the Massachusetts Bay Colony's right to elect its own legislature, in effect turning it into a royal colony. Thomas Gage was made the royal governor and instituted martial law within the colony. Also, under these acts, many of the provisions of the Quartering Act, which had been repealed earlier, were put back into place. The Administration of Justice Act allowed trials to be held in locations outside of the area where the crime took place. Furthermore, the Boston Harbor was closed until the damages caused by the Boston Tea Party were repaid.
I am sorry if I got it wrong
