SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT BE ALLOWED TO DETAIN SUSPECTED TERRORISTS WITHOUT TRIAL?
Terrorism isn't James Bond or Tom Clancy. Even al-Quaeda is looking old school these days--now it's just some guy with a bomb. He walks the same roads as us. He thinks the same thoughts. But he's got a bomb. MICHAEL MARSHALL, Blood of Angels
Thesaurus defines terrorism as the calculated use of violence against civilians to attain political or religious goals. Knowing that a terrorist could be one among the thousands of innocent people walking on the roads is a scary thought. But so is a murderer, a thief, a rapist one among those thousands. All of them are out to hurt harmless people in some way or the other. How do we know who among a crowd of people is a murderer? So is it right to detain an innocent bystander blaming him for an act he hasn’t performed? It is not. The same way it is wrong to detain a person indefinitely in the name of a suspected terrorist for a crime he hasn’t committed. In December 2011 American President, Barack Obama passed a legislation under which alleged terrorists can be held without trial for unlimited period until all the hostilities end. They will be allowed to appear before a committee once a year which will decide if the detention should continue. These suspects are then shipped to Guantanamo Bay where they have to undergo torture at its peak which includes shameful abuse, water boarding and convoluted interrogation techniques. Nearly 10% of the prison population held there have been proved to have no relation with any form of terrorism. Then why should they be subject to such cruelties for no fault of theirs? This puts into risk every single citizen because America’s definition of a suspected terrorist is broad and a large category of people will fall under it. A person who has missing fingers or food stored for more than seven days also comes under the category of a potential terrorist. Giving the government rights to put...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document