A bill passed last week in the Senate redefining how the United States deals with prisoners suspected of involvement with terrorism is prompting debate and promises to be a key issue that will affect the upcoming election in November.

Last Thursday, the Senate approved legislation that establishes how much power the government is allowed to exercise when dealing with suspected terrorists and enemy combatants of the United States.

There are already plans to challenge this bill in Supreme Court, said James McCormick, professor and chairman of political science. It is unlikely the legislation will face opposition by the court, he said.

“It does give the president a fair amount of latitude here. Whether that would be declared unconstitutional, that’s up to the justices,” McCormick said. “But if you look at the composition of the Supreme Court, I’m not sure that that’s likely to happen.”

McCormick said opposition to this legislation could be damaging in the upcoming election.

“The Democrats that defected were virtually all Democrats that are running for re-election,” McCormick said. “They don’t want to be viewed as weak on a national security question.”

McCormick said that 80 percent of the Democrats in the Senate voted against the detainee bill, which could be used as ammunition for Republicans to accuse Democrats of being soft on terror.

“The Republicans are going to use this as yet another issue to say that the Democrats are not strong on national security,” McCormick said.

Sarah Sunderman, junior in marketing and president of the ISU Democrats, said she defends the Democrats who are being accused of being soft on terror because they voted against the bill.

“The war on terror is so much more broad than interrogation, and although the war on terror is important, we need to abide by the Constitution,” she said.

Donald McDowell, junior in political science and president of the ISU College Republicans, disagrees with Sunderman. He said he is very much in support of this bill.

“It’s good legislation,” McDowell said. “I think it continues to make sure that our intelligence and our military and our prosecutors have the kind of tools in place to make sure that we are fighting an effective war on terrorism.”

The passing of the detainee bill will win support for Republicans, McDowell said.

“I think that this is going to be a pretty clear election in terms of which way the country wants to go. Americans, Iowans, and college students have a clear choice on whether they want to continue to take the fight to the terrorists or, in a sense, cut and run,” he said.

Sunderman said she is confident Democrats who oppose this bill will not lose popularity with voters.

“The average American understands that people have rights, and that we need to respect those rights,” she said.

McDowell criticized Democrats for being too weak on the issue of terror and homeland security.

“This is legislation that gives the American people a real opportunity to define Republicans who support this legislation and vote for them because they are going to keep the country safe,” McDowell said.

“This will at least make Democrats have to take a vote on whether they are for keeping the country safe, or whether they are for cutting and running.”

The war on terror is more important than the possibility of violating rights, McDowell said.

“When you are dealing with people who hate us with every fiber of their being, I don’t think that we can look at this issue and be able to address those kinds of concerns because no matter what we do, they are going to hate us,” McDowell said.

“We want this to be a country where everyone can be safe, and there are a lot of candidates, a majority of them Democrats, who don’t believe that this is actually a war on terror.”

Sunderman said she is critical of the detainee bill because of its infringement on basic personal rights.

“It gives the president too much power, and it takes away the right to habeas corpus,” Sunderman said. “I think that it has the potential to affect innocent Americans. It definitely needs to be re-evaluated, and it is potentially unconstitutional.”