Debate: Detention without Trial

Should detention without trial (internment) be allowed? This is the imprisonment of someone for a substantial amount of time, without a court trial (civil, military or otherwise). This could be for many months or years- indefinitely. Please vote in the poll above, and then discuss in the thread below.

Here's what I think. Feel free to quote, pick holes in, disagree with or add to my argument against detention without trial:

Hmm...the problem that I have with this is that you don't define the parameters enough. Are we talking universally or just certain countries like the United States? If the United States, are we talking anyone except U.S. citizens or everyone? You have to be more specific in what you're talking about. I will approach it from the way I think you are trying to do, which is just the U.S. Now, in that regard, I believe the Constitution directly addersses this subject, though somewhat a little vaguely:

The United States Constitution




I believe these are the three best parts of the Constitution that address your question. The trick here is that this only applies to you if, and only if you are an actual U.S. citizen. If you aren't, your are in some serious ####. But, if you are a U.S. citizen, then the Constitution guarantees you the right to a fair trial and speedy trial, that excessive bail not be imposed or levied on you, that you don't have to be a witness against yourself, and that you don't have to submit to a search and seizure without a warrant. That being said, there is also the section in Article III on Treason, the only offense to be defined in the Constitution. That deals, of course, with people who knowingly help an enemy of the United States.

But what does all that gobbledygook above have to do with your question. A lot. As it pertains to your question, the only people affected are non-U.S. citizens (e.g. Guantanamo Bay detainees, terrorists, etc.) Anyone who doesn't have citizenship is not protected by the Constitution and can really be treated any way the retainers see fit.

Now I'm not saying that detaining someone against their will is right. I agree with you that it isn't and really shouldn't be allowed. But, as the law stands, anyone the United States catches and considers an enemy with good reason can be kept pretty much for however long the U.S. feels. Movie example, The Rock. Sean Connery's character is captured and held captive for an indefinite amount of time by the United States for attempting to steal microfilm holding some of the nation's greatest secrets. He is not allowed to leave or to have a trial as he is not a U.S. citizen and won't cough up the film. In the end, it's all good cause he escapes and leaves the film behind. Another movie example, Saving Private Ryan. In the film, the squad captures a German machine gunner after a long struggle and with a dead medic to boot. The men want to kill the man, but the captain has compassion and sets him off to hopefully turn himself in to the next Allied checkpoint. Later on, that same man kills the captain at the end of the movie. The point in my eyes comes down to this. Detention without a trial may seem horrible and unjust, but, if it is in the nation's best interest to detain someone for wanting to attack or hurt the United States, than so be it. I'd rather have them kept in prison where they can't do any harm rather than let go with the possibility of hurting the United States. If it was a U.S. citizen getting their rights taken away, that's on thing. But, if it is an enemy of the United States who can possibly be a threat and especially isn't a U.S. citizen, then I have no problem with indefinite detainment.

Paraphrase for light readers and skimmers: The United States should be allowed to indefinitely detain non-U.S. citizens only if it's in the best interests of national security and with the proper just cause (evidence).

I can express my opinions on this subject very concisely.

Yes, but only for a maximum amount of time. If you don't have the evidence to charge them with an offense, they shouldn't be held indefinitely.

Couple of weeks if your suspected of terrorism in the UK i believe. And that is a cut back from what it previously was. Something i disagreed with tbh

Yes, but only in cases involving national security or other high profile detainees.

If you've got a terrorist (even suspected) floating around detaining them could ultimately prevent an attack. If you let them go they will head deeper into hiding never to be seen again.

Part of reason as to why people don't agree with this is they feel it is against what is right to do. The same can be said about racial profiling, it's not a preferred method but if it works, that's fine. I invite you all to read this article about profiling in general.

As Creepy said, it's a time of war. If you've got flags painting you as a terrorist would that's perfect reason to be detained.

In summary, if it's a time of war and the person is suspected of having terrorist/enemy ties: the ends justify the means.

I watch too much Law and Order: Special Victims Unit

I think that people should be locked up but only with a maximum time period.

Say a child is raped by her father and she confides to someone about this and the police know it but the girl is too traumatized or too young to stand up in trial. If the police don't have any other evidence they can't bring the case to trial. The father should definitely be put in jail for a bit so the daughter feels safe and the police have some time to find evidence.

Wow that's really awkwardly worded but I need to do some homework so I don't feel like fixing it.

I see no reason for distinguishing between citizens and non-citizens.



The problem is define how sure you are that somebody is a terrorist. Lock someone up who's suspected of terrorism, but with very little evidence, and where does that leave the guy you locked up? You could be searching for evidence for months or years, only to conclude in the end that actually, he's innocent.



Of course, if you have reasonable suspicion to suspect someone to be a terrorist, they should be detained. In the mean time evidence should be gathered and case built against them. But that doesn't mean you should be hunting around for evidence that simply isn't there, holding the suspect indefinitely in the process.





It is, of course, the job of a government to protect its citizens. However it also has a responsibility to the people it detains, citizens or not. Locking someone up for as long as you want with insufficient evidence to charge them is a breach of human rights.





I agree. The only debate from thereon is the maximum time allowed.



As far as I'm concerned, that's a risk you'll have to take. I guess for me it's a question of how long. I think up to 3 months is acceptable, but in order to hold someone for this long you should be reasonably expecting a successful prosecution.



Is it 24 hours? I'm not sure, but it sounds about right. As Creepy says however, this does not apply to suspected terrorists- I believe this is now 48 days? Can anyone confirm this?



Exactly what I think. A government has a responsibility to the people it detains, whether or not they're citizens. Although I do think in some cases 1 months may not be enough- maybe 3 months, but only if there's a good chance that the person will be charged successfully.

Note about wartime situations: There are different laws regarding prisoners of war (POWs). I don't know the ins and outs of them, but I do know they allow indefinite detainment until the war has ceased.

The reason to distinguish is because citizen's actually have rights, where as non-citizens/foreigners don't. For example, there is no basis for the Guantanamo Bay trial to be brought to court because the detainees are not citizens, and as such aren't guaranteed a fair and speedy trial by the Constitution (especially before the Supreme Court). Granted, I'm not saying it wasn't fair and that 'bad things' should continue to happen to prisoners at military bases. All I'm saying is, if you don't live here, we aren't going to protect you, especially if you are in prison for being an enemy combatant or terrorist. What's the whole point of having the Constitution if you can't distinguish between what people have rights and who doesn't? Then nobody knows and it's chaos. The Constitution only applies to citizens, not to outsiders. If you don't like it, then change it. But that's the way it is right now. You don't have 'guaranteed rights' if you aren't a citizen. And it you aren't protected, then the U.S. can hold you for however long they want. Sucks to be you!

Let me rephrase...only U.S. citizens have U.S. rights fully. Foreigners may have rights recognized, but because they are not citizens, they are not entitled to the same rights as a normal U.S. citizen.

As for Guantanamo, I don't side with the court. Why would you let suspected (and most likely probable) terrorists demand habeas corpus when we ourselves clearly put them in prison for a reason? It's a total contradiction between the judicial and executive branches of the government.

I don't think habeas corpus should be given to people who probably just want to get out, turn around, and hurt the system they just escaped from.

Again, I'm not saying that detaining someone indefinitely is right, but sometimes, with the right evidence and probable cause, it may be necessary, and only then would it be allowable.