The scenario is about the United States treating terrorist suspects in very nice prisons and providing them with services that makes them feel no much difference with their former environments. The only thing that they will be missing is communication with their friends and family. Some of the prisoners have been in the facility for sixteen years. The moral dilemma arises from the fact that the United States supports the rule of law. However, there are some people who consider detention camps as outside the law since they infringe on the rights of detainees. The argument in this essay is that it is morally justifiable to hold terrorist suspects in detention camps; however, it is not morally justifiable to offer them good conditions to the extent that they do not miss their previous lives.

Some of the suspects are dangerous and cannot be brought to trial. Instead, the nation should change the policy on very nice prisons and include mild torture of the suspects so that it can obtain terrorism intelligence and information from the suspects (Bellaby 148). The mild torture would eliminate the thoughts of engaging in any terrorism activities. The officials should not be nice at the suspects and they should tell them the facts as they are. There are some privileges such as the access to highly paid prostitutes which the suspects should not access. In some instances, the government does not have enough evidence to try some of the detainees due to the fact that some of the evidence comes from undercover sources which they government may not be willing to disclose. In such a case, then the government does not have a business of being nice to such people.

The government has a responsibility of protecting the citizens and their property (Olson 50). In addition, the war on terror has been fought for the last 16 years and nobody has a predictable timeline on when the war on terror will end. Captured terrorist suspects are not lawful persons who should be subjected to such humane treatment. Their actions can potentially result in loss of lives and property. The suspects cannot be freed as freeing them would expose the nation to the risk of terrorism. It is difficult to handle the suspects under both local and international law.

It is important to note that the mild torture brought upon the suspects can help in gaining information which can help in achieving just aims. This is, the aim of improving security for many other people. The implication of this is that the detention and torture of the suspects helps in preventing harm to other innocent civilians and enables the government achieve its objective of improving security for the civilians. The import of this is that being killed is much worse than being tortured, therefore torture is morally justified in order to prevent one from killing others. In this case, the terrorist suspects are not wronged in any way because they had a chance of engaging in actions which would have not been construed to cause danger to other people.

In conclusion, the scenario is about the United States treating terrorist suspects in very nice prisons and providing them with services that makes them feel no much difference with their former environments. The only thing that they will be missing is communication with their friends and family. The argument in the essay is that that it is morally justifiable to hold terrorist suspects in detention camps; however, it is not morally justifiable to offer them good conditions to the extent that they do not miss their previous lives. The suspects should be exposed to mild torture in order to protect the lives and property of Americans. This is an action that does not injure them because they had the opportunity of engaging in actions which would have not been construed to cause danger to other people.