Detainees at Guantanamo Bay
Name:
Course Name:
Tutor:
Date:
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY———————————————————————–3
INTRODUCTION———————————————————————————-4
VIEWS OF THE CRITICS———————————————————————–4
VIEWS OF THOSE WHO SUPPORT TRIALS WITHIN THE US COURTS——-5
CONCLUSION————————————————————————————–6
REFERENCE—————————————————————————————-7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The issue of whether the terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay should be tried in the US courts has become a hot topic in the recent days since the decent of President of Obama on the presidency. This paper attempts to assess both sides of the debate. The paper evaluates the views of the proponents and opponents of the trial within US courts and concludes that the detainees should be tried within the US courts. The reasons are highlighted both in the body and conclusion.
INTRODUCTION
The subject of trying the terrorist detainees has elicited a heated debate among individuals in different quarters of the society. The two prevalent sides of the debate are holding differing views with respect to whether the detainees should be tried in the US courts or elsewhere. One side of the debate holds that the detainees should not be tried in the US courts for concern that it impairs the efforts of assuring the security to the society. Another side holds that the detainees should be tried within the US courts without any problem. While it is imperative to analyze the views of both sides, this paper holds that the terrorist detained at Guantanamo Bay should be tried in the US Courts.
In order to defend its position succinctly, the paper takes a keen critical assessment of the views presented by both the proponents and critics of the view that the terrorist detainees should be tried within the US courts.
VIEWS OF THE CRITICS
The opponents of trial within then US courts maintain that such a move to try the detainees ion the US courts would endanger the public and US citizenry in particular from possible further terrorist attacks. If these suspects are released on technicality or if they are not found guilty, and freed within the borders of the nation, they are a source of danger. It can be remembered that the trials of September 11 were halted in New York when the residents raised their concern for possible insecurity (Dahlstrom 2003). Another part of this school of thought argues that the detainees can be tried within the US boundaries but must be tried under a military tribunal.
The opponents hold that the terrorist detainees should be tried at Guantanamo Bay because if they are tried within the land and within the US courts, it would become easier for the trying courts to expose top secret or classified information thus become another source of insecurity. They also argue that such a move would lead to confinement of prosecutors while the suspects are accorded more rights that are given to the US citizens (Dahlstrom 2003). The critics also attach an issue to the security concern arguing that bringing the terrorist detainees to the US courts is likely to create public alarm and general anxiety as well as an increased expenditure on the criminal lawyer costs.
VIEWS OF THOSE WHO SUPPORT TRIAL WITHIN THE US COURTS
Trial within the US courts, the supporters argue, would be achieved with more effectiveness and efficiency. This position is based on the historical perspective that has seen most of trials done in the US courts being successful in respect to the conviction of suspects. If the US courts have a history of success in their jury process, they should be trusted to carry the prosecution of the detainees without there arising any problem of inefficiency or lack of effectiveness. For instance, Sutton (2009) posits that the US justice system is advantaged to handle the trial of the terrorist detainees given its long history of success in trial and prosecution of the suspected terrorists without endangering the public in any way.
Secondly, the supporters hold that claiming that the detainees cannot be tried in our courts is tantamount to evisceration of the very values our society stands for. On the same level, the idea behind the argument is that if the society stands to protect justice and human equality, what is the difference between the US citizens detained at Guantanamo Bay and have to be brought home for trial for committing crimes against humanity and the terrorist detainees who are not US citizens? The critics however counter this argument on the basis that these detainees must not be accorded the same rights accorded to the US citizens (Dahlstrom 2003).
The detainees are just suspects and it is not known if they are terrorists or not. If they come to the US, it is not within the limits of common knowledge to establish that they will now turn into terrorists. This argument is however disturbing on the grounds that it is a gambling kind of argument where it would be assumed that lack of knowledge of these people means that everything that happens would favor the US citizens. It is disputable though can only stand to bolster the rest.
Steyn (2004) holds that the government of the United States is justified to judge the terrorist detainees for committing crimes against its citizens and land. Therefore, the internal court system is justified to carry on with the trial process of the terrorist detainees within the US court system.
CONCLUSION
Having assessed the arguments on both sides of the debate, the point is evident that the terror detainees are terror detainees because of being suspected to carry out activities that endanger the life of the American citizens in the first place and the peace of the world at large. Just like nations are justified to try officers or solders of the enemy army of war crimes, the US court system is justified to handle the case within its courts. History has given a good point of reference on the capacity of the US court system to handle the matters without creating danger to the citizens or encountering failure. These points therefore strengthen the thesis statement that the detainees should be tried within the US courts without any problem
Reference:
Dahlstrom, K. E. (2003) “Executive Policy toward Detention and Trial of Foreign Citizens at Guantanamo Bay,” 21 Berkeley J. Int’l L. 662
Steyn J., (2004) “Guantanamo Bay: The Legal Black Hole” Cambridge University Press- Republication 2008 International & Comparative Law Quarterly (2004), 53: 1-15
Sutton J., (July 23, 2009) “US courts convict 91 pct in terrorism trials-study” Reuters, Available online from URL: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN7N169281
