Rep. Adam Smith of Washington and Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado announced a beneficial bill that “would prohibit the indefinite detention of any suspected terrorist apprehended in the United States, whether or not the suspect was a U.S citizen.”

The bill will modify the debatable provision of the National Defense Authorization Act that gives the military the power to hold anyone suspected of terrorism indefinitely.

This amendment will correct the unlawful ability of the military to arrest innocent civilians based on only profiling and suspicion, without any substantial evidence.

The concern of indefinite detention is nothing new. The NDAA was intensely disputed last year in Congress and was even on the verge of being vetoed, but President Barack Obama yielded after some alterations were made.

The bill also proposes that suspects undergo the civil justice system and be given due process rights to determine lawful detainment, which may raise questions of safety to some. It is possible that this process may cause disastrous events. It causes a dilemma with the policy.

If a suspect was actually a terrorist and was to be put on trial by civilians, then this scenario would provide the terrorist the opportunity to harm innocent civilians in order to send a message to the government. Worse, he or she will have the chance to be freed of any accusations, given the jury rules in the terrorist’s favor. In that case, the lives of citizens would wrongfully be put in danger.

On the other hand, if the suspect was not actually a terrorist but was illegally apprehended, then a trial will provide them with the opportunity to reclaim their  freedom and avoid any unnecessary and unjustified detainment and prosecution (not to mention embarrassment).

So this poses the question of whether saving an innocent person from being unjustly abused and imprisoned is worth risking the lives of civilians to possible extremist actions.

It is true that through the process of civil trial, there will be a risk of a possible terrorist being acquitted from the charges and free from government captivity, but that risk is worth liberating a guiltless civilian being unfairly confined, tormented and interrogated.

By undergoing a trial, the defendant will be judged by the people on their indictments. And if there is enough convincing substantial evidence, then the defendant will either be lawfully incarcerated or released. Either way, the defendant would undergo a fair trial and be properly judged.

This will eliminate any questions of whether the accused was a terrorist or not. Most importantly, it will free those that were wrongly apprehended. Although the risk factor of a terrorist committing drastic measures during trial is still there, the reward of freeing the guiltless is worth it.

This bill will help reduce the threat of terrorism from the people by their military. After all, aren’t we innocent until proven guilty?