BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Internment without trial encourages the bad behaviour of other states.

Compromising our usual high standards of human rights encourages bad behaviour by other countries. Governments with less concern for rights are reassured by the apparent failure of liberal democracy to address a terrorist threat, and feel justified in tightening up their own measures against individuals and groups perceived as a threat. Western governments, meanwhile, lose their moral ability to criticise abuses elsewhere. Overall, the cause of freedom suffers everywhere. This can be seen clearly in the actions of governments around the world since September 11 2001, where existing repressive measures have been justified in new ways as part of the war on terror, or new ones introduced in apparent response to it. India, for example, has been using repressive measures in Kashmir for twenty years, however it still exploited the war on terror as a pretext for international support for its latest crackdowns 1. 1.  Shingavi, S. (2010, July 14). India's new crackdown in Kashmir. Retrieved July 14, 2011, from CETRI:
Internment without trial exacerbates the antagonism of enemies and subsequent risk to civilians.

To intern without trial, for prolonged periods, the believed enemies of a state is to offer them and their supporters added reason to be antagonistic. In Northern Ireland, “violence soared following the introduction of internment and the British government imposed ‘direct rule’” 1. Moreover, Guantanamo Bay, the central symbol of the growth of executive power in United States’ war on terror, has been described by Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence, as ‘a rallying cry for terrorist recruitment and harmful to our national security’ 2. Armando Spataro, a senior Italian prosecutor, has remarked ‘Muslims around the world are asking why there is so little international opposition to the U.S. policy of internment without trial. The collateral damage of Guantanamo is incalculable’ 3. It appears difficult to argue that the extension of executive power in the war on terror has had any effect on the security of innocent civilians other than increasing their risk of harm. 1 Davis, F. (2004, August) Internment Without Trial: The Lessons from the United States, Northern Ireland and Israel. Retrieved June 23, 2011 from:  2 Rhee, F. (2009, January 22). Obama orders Guantanamo Bay closed, bans torture. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Boston: 3 Greening, K. J. (2007, February 12). 8 Reasons to Close Guantanamo Now. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from In These Times: improve this To intern without trial, for prolonged periods, the believed enemies of a state is to offer them and their supporters added reason to be antagonistic. In Northern Ireland, “violence soared following the introduction of internment and the British government imposed ‘direct rule’” 1. Moreover, Guantanamo Bay, the central symbol of the growth of executive power in United States’ war on terror, has been described by Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence, as ‘a rallying cry for terrorist recruitment and harmful to our national security’ 2. Armando Spataro, a senior Italian prosecutor, has remarked ‘Muslims around the world are asking why there is so little international opposition to the U.S. policy of internment without trial. The collateral damage of Guantanamo is incalculable’ 3. It appears difficult to argue that the extension of executive power in the war on terror has had any effect on the security of innocent civilians other than increasing their risk of harm. 1 Davis, F. (2004, August) Internment Without Trial: The Lessons from the United States, Northern Ireland and Israel. Retrieved June 23, 2011 from:  2 Rhee, F. (2009, January 22). Obama orders Guantanamo Bay closed, bans torture. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Boston: 3 Greening, K. J. (2007, February 12). 8 Reasons to Close Guantanamo Now. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from In These Times:
The war on terror is not an armed conflict, and therefore internment without trial is illegal.

The war on terror is not like past, conventional conflicts, and the government should not be able to take wartime powers simply on its own declaration. The terrorist attacks of September 11 2001 were horrific, but they did not threaten the entire life of the American nation - the economy has rebounded surprisingly quickly and no one believes that even a successful attack on the White House or Congress would have ended American democracy. Separate from warfare therefore, interment without trial is clearly illegal – as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states, ‘everyone has the right to liberty and security of the person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention’1. If it can be agreed upon that human rights are universal, internment without trial outside of the protocols on warfare is illegal. Furthermore, the war on terror is not winnable - there is no likely endpoint at which we will be able to declare an enemy to have been defeated and so allow detained "enemy combatants" to go home - so these harsh but supposedly temporary wartime measures will become the norm.  1. Davis, 2004. p4
Internment without trial fails to make society safer.

Giving the government the power to detain suspects without due process of law will not in fact make society any safer. The proposition's arguments rely upon the accuracy of secret intelligence, which supposedly identifies individuals planning terrorist acts, but which cannot be revealed in open court. Past examples suggest that such intelligence is often deeply flawed. For example, when internment was introduced in Northern Ireland in 1971 over 100 of the 340 original detainees were released within two days when it was realised much of the Special Branch intelligence that had been used to identify them was incorrect 1. Recent intelligence failures in the campaign against Al-Qaeda point to the difficulties western intelligence services have in penetrating and understanding non-white groups, while intelligence on Iraq's weapons programmes was also clearly flawed. So not only will many of the wrong people be unjustly locked up, many dangerous ones will be left at liberty. 1 West, C. (2002, January 2). Internment: methods of interrogation. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from BBC News:
Internment without trial undermines democratic values.

Rights are needed to protect the few as well as the many, otherwise there would be no need for them in a democracy. Indefinite detention and lack of a normal public trial undermine the key values of habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence. The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution enshrines the principle that ‘no person shall be deprived of his liberty without due process’1. As such, suspects should be tried if there is evidence, deported if they are foreign nationals, but most importantly released if a proper case cannot be made against them. Internment in Northern Ireland was also said to be aimed only at a tiny minority, but thousands passed through the Long Kesh detention camp in the four years it operated. Similarly, the internment of Japanese-Americans from 1942 onwards led to a belief in the post-war environment that they were ‘radically predisposed to acts of disloyalty’1 undermining the democratic values of inclusion and multi-culturalism that the US particularly likes to attribute to itself.  1 Davis, F. (2004, August) Internment Without Trial: The Lessons from the United States, Northern Ireland and Israel. Retrieved June 23, 2011  improve this
Tribunals are adequate replacements that maintain respect for detainees' rights.

Tribunals do not respect detainees’ rights, but in fact require the undermining of those rights. Regardless of the procedures with which internment is dressed up by embarrassed authorities, it is open to abuse because trials are secret with the executive essentially scrutinising itself. Often there is not a free choice of lawyer to represent the suspect (detainees before US Military Commissions can only choose lawyers approved by the executive). Trials are held in secret with crucial evidence frequently withheld from the accused and his defence team, or given anonymously with no opportunity to examine witnesses properly. Appeals are typically to the executive (which chose to prosecute them), rather than to an independent judicial body. In such circumstances prejudice and convenience are likely to prevent justice being done. improve this
The protection of intelligence sources is more important than trying suspects.

Not only is intelligence often badly flawed, internment simply doesn't work as a strategy to combat terrorism 1. Instead it is counter-productive, because it makes martyrs of the individuals and groups who are being detained. The experience of Northern Ireland was that internment acted as a "recruiting sergeant" for the IRA, radicalising many detainees without previous terrorist contacts, and rallying supporters to their cause in response to the perceived injustice. Similar responses can be seen to Guantanamo Bay today in the Muslim world. Moreover, the confidence of ordinary citizens in their governments is undermined by such harsh measures, reducing their support for the overall "war effort". Indeed, if we compromise aspects of our free and open societies in response to pressure, then the terrorists who hate our values are winning. 1. Nossel, S. (2005, June 12). 10 Reasons to Close Guantanamo. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Democracy Arsenal. improve this
Governments must have powers to protect citizens from harm.

Governments clearly have powers to protect citizens from harm, but there is a limit to that extension of power. It is a limit that does not include the undermining of the very values the state is built upon, restricted executive power. Captured enemy combatants are not comparable to those captured during World War II, for the former were arrested for the perceived threat they caused, whilst the latter were captured and interned for a tangible, real threat 1. Soldiers are implicitly guilty when captured, enemy combatants who have yet to commit a crime can reasonably claim their innocence and deserve a fair trial. Furthermore, there is little evidence to suggest that internment without trial is a means to protection; the period of internment only stirs up sentiment that can be directed against the captors once eventually released. It may be the case that the safest way of protecting civilians is in fact to offer suspects a fair trial and, if found innocent, rendered back to where they were found. The existence of a strong, impartial legal framework would have infinite benefits for the moral standing of the state in the eyes of potential adversaries.  1 Davis, F. (2004, August) Internment Without Trial: The Lessons from the United States, Northern Ireland and Israel. Retrieved June 23, 2011 from: improve this
Internment without trial encourages the bad behaviour of other states.

Internment without trial does not justify the bad behaviour of other states, for it is justifiable under norms of international law. For example, the measures taken by the UK government to detain foreign nationals identified by intelligence as a serious threat to Britain are justified by conflicting priorities. In normal circumstances such people would be deported to their home countries, but asylum rules prevent the forced deportation of people to countries which might persecute them. Those detained in the UK are in fact free to leave if they can find a country to take them 1. Those who cannot are in effect choosing to remain in detention here. Rather than removing completely the government's power to deport foreign nationals who pose a threat, this is the best solution from a human rights point of view. 1 Kelly, D. (2010, February 20). UK Border Agency response on 'migrant detainees'. Retrieved May 12, 2011 from Immigration Matters improve this
Internment without trial exacerbates the antagonism of enemies and subsequent risk to civilians.

The period of internment, however long, does not serve to exacerbate antagonisms inherent in adversaries. If anything, the period of reflection acts as a punitive measure designed to force the suspect to weigh up his choices and potentially disavow his beliefs. If innocent, they may develop antagonisms towards their captors, but that does not automatically place them in the throes of their suspected associates. Furthermore, even if this were true, the antagonism held towards their captors would not be permitted to lead to further violence for they would be interned until the conclusion of the war. improve this
The war on terror is not an armed conflict, and therefore internment without trial is illegal.

The war on terror is not like past, conventional conflicts but that does not prevent its classification as an armed conflict; soldiers are still dying in fire-fights, territory is still being fought over and the threat to homeland security is very real and visceral. According to the Bush administration, the war on terror represents a new ‘paradigm of war’, whereby the civilians directly engaged in hostilities, ‘enemy combatants’, are not permitted to enjoy the privileges of international humanitarian law. Prisoner of war status is ‘reserved (for) members of the armed forces of a party to an international armed conflict…who must distinguish themselves from the civilian population in order to be entitled to POW status upon capture’ 1. Regarding the ICCPR, it has a specific derogation clause that states ‘in times of public emergency’, the states may excuse themselves from the strict provisions of the covenant. This would, in the context of threats to the safety of civilians, permit states to intern without trial enemy combatants. 1. International Committee of Red Cross, 2005 improve this
Internment without trial fails to make society safer.

It is essential to reach an appropriate balance of rights and freedoms. Everyone recognises the importance of protecting rights and liberties, but this cannot be done at any cost. There is a wider duty on politicians to protect society from harm, and their voters will rightly hold them to account if they fail in this responsibility. As the UK's Home Secretary, David Blunkett has written: "How best to protect ourselves effectively while maintaining the maximum freedoms is one of the biggest issues facing all democratic governments in the aftermath of September 11… I am willing to take whatever critics may throw at me, as long as history does not judge that our Labour government failed to do its best to protect us against those who would destroy our lives and our democracy.1" 1. Blunkett, D. (2001, November 20). This is not internment. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/nov/20/britainand911.uksecurity improve this
Internment without trial undermines democratic values.

Internment without trial does not undermine either democracy or its values. Tough measures are aimed only at very few suspects; only 11 are currently detained in Britain, only a few hundred at Guantanamo Bay. Exceptional circumstances call for special measures, but these are so limited in scope that they do not threaten our democratic values. Similarly, until the cessation of hostilities, the suspension of habeus corpus for ‘enemy combatants’ is not unlike the holding of prisoners of war until an armistice, whereby it is not legally necessary to provide recourse to judicial process. As Dick Cheney notes, ‘in previous wars we’ve always exercised the right to capture the enemy and then hold them until the end of the conflict. The same principle ought to apply here’ 1. 1.Trott, B. (2008, December 15). Don't Close Guantanamo until terror war ends: Cheney. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Reuters: improve this
Tribunals are adequate replacements that maintain respect for detainees' rights.

The denial of normal legal processes does not automatically confer the absence of legal processes altogether. Though a normal public trial is not possible for security reasons, detainees' rights are still respected during the internment process. Safeguards are built into the internment process so that each case can be considered fairly, with the suspect represented before a proper tribunal and given a right to appeal to a higher authority. At Guantanamo Bay, President G. W. Bush introduced military tribunals made up of five U.S. armed force officers and presided over by qualified military judges to handle the legal ambiguities of suspects held in the facility 1 . The accused still have the presumption of innocence and proof of guilt has to be beyond that of a reasonable doubt 2. If such a trial is provided (often to standards of evidence and procedure higher than in normal courts in many countries around the world) and a sentence properly passed, then this is not internment as it has been practised in the past. 1.The Telegraph. (2007, March 16). Q&A: US Military Tribunals at Guantanamo Bay. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from The Telegraph 2.Ibid
The protection of intelligence sources is more important than trying suspects.

At a time when our society is under threat, it is more important to protect our intelligence sources than it is to try and punish individual terrorists. Even when strong proof exists, charging and trying terror suspects in open court would require governments to reveal their intelligence sources. This would risk the identification of their spies in foreign countries and within dangerous organisations. Not only might this lead to the murder of brave agents, it would also shut off crucial intelligence channels that could warn us of future attacks 1. For example, the head of police in Northern Ireland has admitted ‘if people were not confident their identities would be protected they would not come forward’ 2. In a deal with the devil, the intelligence procured is more important and saves more lives than the violation of one’s right to a fair trial. Even if special arrangements were made to present intelligence evidence in court, hostile organisations would be able to work out how much or little western intelligence services know about them, and the manner in which they operate. In these circumstances, detention without public trial is the only safe option. 1 The Washington Times. (2008, November 12). Editorial: Obama and Gitmo. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from The Washington Times: 2 BBC News (2007, September 11). Informants being put off improve this
Governments must have powers to protect citizens from harm.

Governments must have powers to protect their citizens against threats to the life of the nation. This is not merely to directly protect citizens from political violence, but also because political violence ‘handicaps the process of reconstruction’ 1 in nation-building efforts. Everyone would recognise that rules that are applied in peacetime may not be appropriate during wartime. Captured enemy combatants, for example, should not expect to be tried individually in civilian courts; it is essential however that they be held securely until they no longer pose a threat or an appropriate legal process can be established to assess their case. The war on terror is in this respect a war like earlier, more conventional conflicts whereby captured combatants are held until the conclusion of conflicts. No-one captured on D-Day expected to be granted a trial in a civilian court to establish their guilt. Just because our enemies do not wear uniforms or conform to a normal military structure (some indeed may even hold the citizenship of the state they are fighting against), does not make them any less of a threat to our society. 1 Davis, F. (2004, August) Internment Without Trial: The Lessons from the United States, Northern Ireland and Israel. Retrieved June 23, 2011  improve this
People should have free choice about how they spend their money

The state already does restrict our spending by criminalizing the purchase of certain goods. For example we cannot choose to spend our money buying slaves even if we desire to. Just as we shouldn’t be able to buy another human life, we also should not be able to buy an advantage in life. It seems clear throughout this debate that private education does give an advantage over state schools in many areas. This argument of an unfair advantage has also been identified by Ontario’s (Canada) Provincial Ministry of Education where they are going to identify where a credit was earned if outside the student’s high school (Tamsyn 2010). It further seems unfair to say that people should have a right to choose private education, while this choice is not available to everyone. Those who cannot afford the huge expense of private education are often not choosing to put their children into state schools, they just have no other options. The average annual cost of sending a child to private school in the UK is £9,627, which works out at 36% of the average earning; In the USA the cost of a year’s secondary education is $10,549, out of reach of most families. (The Guardian, 2007; capenet.org). Therefore in defending the freedom to choose to send a child to private school, we are merely defending the right of the wealthy to have this choice and restricting the choice of everyone else.
Private schools are financially beneficial for state schools

While it is true that parents who are having their children educated privately still pay their taxes that get spent on state education, it is also worth noting that private schools currently hold charitable status in the UK, and as such benefit from tax subsidies that some people estimate as £88 million annually (BBC, 2011). This money is able to fund facilities that state schools could not afford. Therefore while private schools financially benefit state schools in some ways, they also are financially damaging to state schools in many other ways.
Private schools provide a better education than state schools

The US magazine Time found research in 2007 that suggested that private schools do not provide a better education than state schools, they do however have a higher percentage of students who would do well in any situation. This means that these children would not lose out by going to state schools. ‘The study says that it is "the kinds of economic and resource advantages their parents can give [students]" — as well as the level of parental involvement in their kids' education —that determines success or failure in high school. The problem isn't in the schools; it's with social inequality’ (Time.com). The second criticism is that statistics provided by the argument are true only because private education exists, and takes all the best teachers, head teachers and resources away from state schools. If public schools were banned then state schools would gain more teachers and resources and thus would raise to the standards currently occupied by private schools. In a study by Hill and Guin for the University of Washington found that in the US more experienced teachers taught in private schools, thus in theory improving levels of teaching due to experience. (University of Washington2003).