During one of my free periods, I had the opportunity to talk to one of my classmates. She takes AP United States History instead of Modern Unites States history, so I gave her some context about Guantanamo and the government's treatment of detainees. Her take on this issue I found was similar to my own. She said that although the government had the final decision, she believed that people are people no matter if they are US Citizens or not. She also said that once you see someone suffering, or their distress levels go up then it's considered abuse. My classmate said that the government should uphold the dignity of the individual because that is something that has been so important to this country for a long time. I believe the same principals that all the prisoners of war should be treated the same way U.S. Citizens are. I think detainees should be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention was an agreement signed by many nations stating that no prisoners of war could be tortured. We as a nation should emulate how we would want other countries to treat us. We want to keep our soldiers and citizens safe, so why would we let ourselves break this agreement? It’s almost allowing other countries to do the same. However I also understand that the government can not always do what is best, and when in a moment of extreme fear, balancing civil liberties and the safety of the country may not seem possible. If I had been in a similar situation, with national security being risked, I do not know what I would do. As I stated earlier, I would want to hold prisoners of war under the terms that are defined in the Geneva Convention. But I know that it may not be ideal for national security, if one of the prisoners was possibly withholding information that could have a large impact on the safety of the country. Then comes the question, how do we uphold the rights of these prisoners? Should they be considered citizens or treated like they had already committed a crime?