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
Wong-Woo was eventually allowed to enter because the Secretary of Labor overruled the denial. This suggests that Wong-Woo had a valid application for coming to the U.S.
Answer:
No. The government should only regulate what is necessary, and as long as it respects human rights while doing so.
When the government makes decisions regarding household life, education, and the workplace, the government can easily become totalitarian. A tolalitarian government is very dangerous as exemplified by real-life examples such as Hitler's Germany or modern-day North Korea. (In fiction, the subject of a totalitarian government is also treated in the famous novel 1984).
<span>Alexander the Great eventually established his administrative headquarters at "Babylon." Alexander captured Babylon after he left Egypt and marching towards Mesopotamia. He defeated Darius in the Battle of Gaugamela. In Babylon, he prepared many new campaigns in the invasion of Arabia but never realized them because he died.</span>
