1a) Our justice system has always stated " innocent until proven guilty." The war in Iraq has brought out several ethical dilemmas since significant changes in the military action and homeland security. Holding terrorists suspects without legal representation, charges or court hearings is almost absurd. However, using the paradigm model, it really explains itself. The paradigm of short term versus long term is best suited for this type of dilemma. The government is taking immediate present action, due to the need of human safety since 9/11 and hoping this will help build the future. However, they government at the same time could be risking the future by holding the suspects without normal U.S. laws and court procedures. Is the government close to retaining that type of power in the future over U.S. citizens? A resolution to the dilemma is to go by the Rule-based model, or the Categorical Imperative of Immanuel Kant. There is no sure way to know what the consequences for holding the suspects could be. However, if the government stuck to the principles of the country, and gave a fair trial with representation this dilemma would not be such a problem.
1b) Detaining people based on physical characteristics of a terrorist does not seem so ethically wrong to me. The old saying of "Rather be safe than sorry" applies to this dilemma. It's always been the way the law system works. If someone sees suspicious activity, they call the cops. If someone murders another person, the police draw up a sketch of the suspect and detain people that match the description. The paradigm of justice versus mercy best fits this dilemma. The reason for this is because the justice side is the fact that there is possible suspects in the country that could harm thousands of lives, ...