Responses should be a minimum of 250 words and include direct questions. You may challenge, support or supplement another student’s answer using the terms, concepts and theories from the required readings. Also, do not be afraid to respectfully disagree where you feel appropriate; as this should be part of your analysis process at this academic level.

Respond to Andrea:

In the United States we have an issue with detaining people without right or consent. The United States does not have a statute authorizing preventive detention of suspected terrorist without charge. The government may have learned of the individual from a confidential or foreign-government source that it cannot publicly disclose, or from an ongoing investigation. Preventive detention is in fact an established part of U.S. law. Federal and state statutes authorize preventive detention of those facing trial on criminal or immigration charges, and of those whose mental disabilities warrant civil commitment. All juvenile detention is, at least in theory, preventive rather than punitive. They have several steps in preventive detentions. The first preventive detention rests on a prediction about the future behavior, and no one can predict the future. Secondly, the unnecessarily risk of detaining innocent people is high, because decision makers are likely to err on the side of detention. Finally, the third one is the inconsistent with basic notions of human autonomy and free will. However, the consideration of preventive detention should begin with a strong presumption that society should deal with dangerous people through criminal prosecution and punishment, not preventive detention. The detention should be limited to situations that cannot be adequately address through the criminal justice system. Post 9/11 roundups of thousands of persons with no proven ties to terrorism was being done. The US counterterrorism operations today are being carried out on an unprecedented scale. The attacks that happen on September 11, 2001 the key element of the counterterrorism operations has been the detention of suspected terrorists. In the 2012, the US held 168 terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba and roughly 3,000 in Afghanistan. Under the US law, the president must trace his authority to detain individuals in the context of military operations to one of the two sources of legal authority. They either have a specific statute granting him that authority or his independent constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the US. The statutory authority of detainment of individuals in the course of military operations is provided in 3 separate statutes. The first is the AUMF that provides congress the authority to detain in the context of hostilities that have a nexus to the 9/11 attacks on the US. Second, in 2002 they provided detention authority in the context of the conflict in Iraq. Thirdly, the MCA provided the independent statutory authority to detain those whom it grants jurisdiction to prosecute. The consequences of counterterrorism makes it clear that the counter-terrorist policies have the potential to undermine the democratic principles, institutions, and processes they seek to preserve. When the attacks happen on 9/11 it open the eyes of America to a frightening world of enemies surrounding the country. And I think they still have one eye open and one eye closed.

Citations:

Hathaway, Oona; Adelsberg, Samuel; Amdur, Spencer; Levitz, Philip; Pitts, Freya; and Shebaya, Sirine, “The Power to Detain: Detention of Terrorism Suspects After 9/11” (2013). Faculty Scholarship Series. 4725. https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/472…

Eland, Ivan. “Preserving Civil Liberties in an Age of Terrorism.” Issues in Science and Technology15, no. 1 (Fall 1998).