Based on what you know of the situation, what arguments could be made against holding suspects without allowing for a proper trial? what argument could be made for holding suspected terrorists without formally charging them with crimes and giving them a day in us court?

A good answer should contain the following:

Possible Answers:

Arguments against

We would be violating our own legal standards by not giving these people a free and fair trial.

Offering open trials would prove to the rest of the world that we have a fair and open society.

It is morally right to give each person accused of a crime a chance to defend themselves.

Arguments for

These people are dangerous and should not be allowed in the United States

The suspects were captured in battle zones and should be treated as enemy fighters, not criminals.

Explanation:

- "the past is made of multitudinous items ranging from anything that can be collected, recollected or assessed to originate in the past. as such, the past is a gallimaufry of particulars that may not have been related in any way. however, the human mind seeks organization to understand concepts and other things. the human mind therefore seeks relationships in explaining and studying the past. history being a humanity, dictates that historians have to serve this human trait by bringing structure to details of the past. historians do this by creating interpretive frameworks that capture as many details as possible."

< 3

c, to compete