Legal rights: At what point does an individual lose them, and at what point are we allowed to keep someone locked up for good?

This is exactly the question that Americans have been asking themselves since the beginning of the War On Terror. For the first time in a long time, America was imprisoning enemy combatants in Cuba and across Europe. The people captured and put in these prisons have been subject to a numerous loss of rights. This issue has raised a clash in the very heart of American ethics. Do we, as Americans, allow certain people to lose their right to a trial? A lot of the people released from Guantanamo Bay and other prisons have ended up right back in the field, shooting at American soldiers again. If some of these people were to be tried, there may not be enough evidence to hold them. This debate has struck a chord in American politics and leaves us asking ourselves what we define as a citizen, a person, an enemy soldier and whether or not they all deserve the same rights as each other. On one side, there is the argument that these people must be held indefinitely, and that lives could be lost if they are let go. There are others, however, who feel that as a country, we should never compromise our ideals because that is what sets us apart. The Obama administration had promised to close Guantanamo, yet they seem to be having a lot of difficulty tackling these same questions. During the civil war, President Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus and certain other rights, when the north was deep in war and paranoia about southern spies was feverish.

Another debate that runs parallel to the issue of indefinite imprisonment is torture. It came to light that the Bush administration had been using a technique called water boarding, and perhaps other techniques that are more serious. This torture, once again, brings up a deep clash of feelings and priorities. Do we torture and perhaps get vital information? Or do we stick to our ideals, and show even the captured enemy combatants that we have a certain moral standard for all people. One fear that a lot of Americans have is that once we start taking rights away from some people, that this will start our descent down a slippery path towards a more powerful and less balanced government.  This argument goes even deeper, to the one about how much control the government should have over our lives. There are two sides to this issue: those who favor heavy government involvement and those who believe that the government should interfere in our lives as little as possible. This basic argument has fueled so much debate and argument that there will never be a clear white or black answer.

I believe that America itself is not just a piece of land, but an idea. When we start to compromise that idea, we are really hurting the spirit of our nation. Sometimes though, when an an enemy combatant is so dangerous, or the intelligence they are holding is so valuable,  there might be no other way than to resort to harsh methods to make sure that these ‘combatants’ do not harm any more innocent people. These kinds of issues, though, should not be skirted and should be handled by the judiciary. The judiciary ,whether military or civilian, should wade into this issue and find a way to define situations like these. If we pretend that these situations do not exist,  America is going to face a bigger and bigger clash. On a case by case basis, I believe we can find a good balance between idealism and pragmatism.