Debating Detention: Rights of Terrorists Post-9/11

“Since September 11, the Bush Administration has refused to release the names and whereabouts of hundreds of persons detained as "special interest" immigration detainees, various persons detained as material witnesses, and thousands of persons detained without trial as alleged security threats here, at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere”(Paust 1352). Because of the staggering amount of suspected terrorists detained without trial since 9/11, some people have started to question President Bush’s right to detain these people indefinitely. These questions have led to open debate on what rights these people get, and if these people deserve the right to a trial. The controversy over how the United States should treat terrorists that have been captured

One of these such documents, the Constitution, actually states that, “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it” (Madison 2). As the Constitution states, Habeas Corpus cannot be suspended unless in cases of rebellion, invasion, or if safety requires so. When a U.S. citizen attacks other citizens in a terrorist attack over their belief that their group is better and that we, as infidels, do not belong on this world and want to rule over us, is this not an act of rebellion? A rebellion is defined as an act of violent or open resistance to an established government or ruler, therefore, by this definition, this attack is a rebellion and these people can have their rights of Habeas Corpus suspended. The Geneva convention also supports this with, “Articles 5, 42, and 78...allow[s] the detention of certain persons who pose security threats during armed conflicts, like those in Afghanistan and Iraq...” (Paust 1338). The Geneva Convention states that people captured in armed conflicts can be detained without trial. This would apply to terrorists who are captured in raids which mean that terrorists are not entitled to a trial as long as they pose as a security threat. Bush’s military order also states that, “...because of the detainees' status as "enemy combatants," their detention was a matter of

The Constitution allows for Habeas Corpus to be suspended when someone poses a security threat and military tribunals can be used on people even if war has not been declared against them. The Geneva Convention and military orders from President Bush agree that terrorists are only allowed to be only be tried by military tribunals. And as others have put it, why should terrorists be given more rights under than the Constitution then the United States’ own men at arms? There is a reason why so many people have been detained indefinitely: it is because these people are dangerous and are a safety risk. That is why terrorists should be tried by military