Do the Guantanamo inmates deserve a trial, and if not, why not?

Question

Surely if they're guilty, a trial is the only just route to take. This is what the founding fathers enshrined in the constitution.

Answer 1

I definitely think that they deserve a trial. If they are found guilty, then something can be done with them, rather than detaining them indefinitely in prison. If they are found innocent, then the country needs to make reparations to them for falsely imprisoning them for months/years.

There seems to be some sort of misunderstanding as to whether these people are POWs. This is being litigated right now, but it is my instinct that they are not. They were not captured on the battle field. Many were ripped right out of their homes in the US. This doesn't mean that they are innocent men and women, but it does make them the same as a person who is arrested for burglary, for example. As a wartime president, Bush does not have the power to override the constitution. The Supreme Court has held this time and time again. They deserve a trial.

Answer 2

I think it goes something like this..."innocent until PROVEN guilty". Basic and fundamental right: the right to a fair trial. The USA does not have even one close ally (like Britain) who is in support of Guantanamo. The whole world sees what an affront to human rights Guantanamo is, and the place is universally condemned as complete and utter shame and disgrace.

Answer 3

By definition and in context of the Geneva Convention circa 1949, non uniformed and not aligned with a recognized and declared antagonist state the administration is Correct that the battle field detainees now at Gitmo Are Not P.O.W.’s. Peacemaker is right…s.n.a.f.u. is as the handle infers…not! By legal, moral, and negotiated definition these detainees are non aligned enemy combatants and fall under military tribunal status only.
As an side to nk rso the link you should evaluate is…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention

Answer 4

Name one country that has ever tried their POWs during wartime? There isn't. Do you really want people that would rather kill you than look at you running around free? We are at war. The prisoners at Gitmo were captured on the battlefield. And according to the Geneva Convention we are treating them better than they deserve. According to the Geneva Convention a non-uniformed fighter can be executed on the spot. We haven't done that. We have more than complied with the Geneva Convention. Our enemy doesn't even try to comply with it, let alone care about it (other than for propaganda purposes).

So no they don't deserve a trial. At least until the monsters quit wanting to kill us.

Answer 5

They started military tribunals and the defense insisted on judiciary. The courts are ruling on that.

Of course we have to have trials. Even if every single one is guilty as sin, we ourselves need for them to have trials and due process. Rights aren't rights at all if they crumble when times get bad.

Answer 6

Those who planned and who run the Guantanamo prison are the ones who deserve a trial -for war crimes.

As for the prisoners, they should all be released.

Answer 7

I don't think this was what the founding father set up but it seem like it was developed out of the
Geneva Conference

personally I think they should be let go after the war is over but the war is not over yet. so they are going to have to wait abit longer.

They should have access to legal right as spell out in the Geneva_Conference in 1954

Answer 8

QUOTE; Name one country that has ever tried their POWs during wartime? There isn't."

Well Peacemaker, there in lies the problem. bush has refused to give these detainees POW status, so by his own words, these men are not POW's. Therefore, since they aren't given trials they are being unlawfully detained. So your silly *** argument kind of falls apart. It boils down to, give them POW status or give them trials or let them go.

Answer 9

yes and yes. Haul israeli military and political leaders in and trial them as terrorists too.

Answer 10

no