To hold more than 100 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay without charging them, without giving them proper representation, without giving them any damn thing? WTF???
2006-06-29 18:31:20 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Gee, Coconuts, did you come up with that all by your little little self.
Proof that your mind is as small as your answer.
2006-06-29 18:36:43 · update #1
Mona, um....... After reading your answer, it's clear that you're the one who needs to be educated, starting with an English course.
2006-06-29 18:39:39 · update #2
And to thinker.... I'm not sure what to say, I'm sitting here with my mouth hung wide open, in total awe. Simply outstanding!!
2006-07-01 22:17:45 · update #3
Q Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq ?
A Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Q But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q And that's why we invaded Iraq ?
A Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the next election.
Q Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A To use them in a war, silly.
Q I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q And what was that?
A Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q Kind of like what they do in China ?
A Don't go comparing China to Iraq . China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops and help make US corporations richer.
Q So if a country lets its people are exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A Right.
Q Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q Isn't that exactly what happens in China ?
A I told you, China is different.
Q What's the difference between China and Iraq ?
A Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
Q Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q Like in Iraq ?
A Exactly.
Q And like in China , too?
A I told you, China 's a good economic competitor. Cuba , on the other hand, is not.
Q How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, the US government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba , and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A Don't be smart.
Q I didn't think I was being one.
A Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A I told you, stop saying bad things about China . Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.
Q What's a military coup?
A That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan .
Q Why did we invade Afghanistan ?
A Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A Well, on September 11th, nineteen men - fifteen of them Saudi Arabians - hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans.
Q So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q Fighting drugs?
A Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q How did they do such a good job?
A Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
Q Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia ?
A That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q What's the difference?
A The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia .
A Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q Who trained them?
A A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q Was he from Afghanistan ?
A Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?
A Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq , so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
Q So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A Well, yeah. For a while.
Q Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran , which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q Why did that make him our friend?
A Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A Most of the time, yes.
Q And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q Why?
A Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless un-American
Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A Yes.
Q But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq ?
A Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.
2006-06-29 18:54:58 · answer #1 · answered by Thinker 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
What gives them the right to be part of a government that has regularly gassed its own citizens? What gives them the right to be part of a country that has systematically tried to eliminate a ethnic group? Last I saw that was an international crime. The previous group who did that was the Nazis. Should the U.S. have stood back and allowed that to continue? What national background are you? Unless you are part of the "Master Race" then you would have been on that list. Maby not immediatly, but eventually.
First They Came for the Jews
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller
I am speaking out. There has been an ongoing attempt for the Kurds to get themselves a land of their own. A free Arab state where they could rule themselves. (ALA the Palestinians) EVERY other Arab nation has not only denied them this, the other Arab nations have supported Sadam's attempts to wipe them out.
It was years before the Nazis were given their trials. It will probably be years before this is all sorted out.
2006-06-30 01:51:38 · answer #2 · answered by billybetters2 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nothing does, and that's the point. If some weak country tried this nonsense the USA would storm the place with the marines, but because of Bush's hypocritical policies and neocon arrogance, the USA has lost the moral authority to do anything. Hopefully this fall begins the end of rapepublican rule in our once proud nation, and we can get back to running things the way our Constitution says, the intent of our Founding Fathers.
2006-06-30 01:36:12 · answer #3 · answered by Iamstitch2U 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We'll be hearing the legal answer soon. The Supreme Court ruling opened the door for Congress to pass legislation that will make it possible to try these criminals outside of our country. Hopefully, it does pass.
As for the question asked...
You and I have no idea why many of those prisoners were captured to begin with.
- Could they have been in the act of placing a roadside bomb?
- Could they have been found in the same building where some of the beheading occurred?
- Could they have been firing at Multinational forces in Iraq?
You just don't know, and neither do I. But I can tell you that they're lucky to have their life if any of the above is true. They'll have their say one day, but it won't be in a U.S. court and they won't be sitting in a U.S. jail cell. I'd be damned if we have to finance their living expenses...
2006-06-30 02:01:59 · answer #4 · answered by C Bass 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
whoa... seriously everyone here are citizens of the USA. sorry but somehow i think that the US thinks that they somehow own everything. even the UN couldn't do anything about it... what gives?? it is about bush and his people trying to cover up some conspirancy. don't u people know that a freedom based group has figured that the 9-11 incident was seriously out of shape? didn't anyone noticed the way WTC had crumbled? it was as if someone had planted dynamites and blow up the building... people also found that the so called hijackers were not even what they had alleged in the first place. honestly bush has got a plate full of mess and he ain't cleaning up very well.
2006-06-30 03:39:02 · answer #5 · answered by ILIzuhaILI 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is because we are at war. Have you forgotten 9/11? We were attacked and we responded in kind. Rather than killing the terrorists we captured - as they would do us - we put them in prison in order to learn more about the enemies intelligence. Why do they deserve any kind of representation. They would kill you in a New York minute if they had the opportunity to do so.
2006-06-30 01:37:19 · answer #6 · answered by Coach D. 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
there is no right to give or take or have or not have. its something being done and many find it a load of crap and some don't and see it as necessary to ensure our security and "freedom" - though how taking away freedoms and ignoring our laws ensures freedom is a little beyond me.
and as much as i don't like bush, i don't really blame him, he little more than a straw man, its the people backing him, his administration that seem to feel it is, "he with the biggest stick makes the rules"
it is also ugly, unfair, hypocritical, and gets rather disgusting that it is toted along side the idea that america represents freedom and justice, and a high moral standard.
2006-06-30 01:41:47 · answer #7 · answered by madisonsuicide 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with oh_rah07. The gov't is holding those people because they believe that they are dangerous, but they don't know what to do with them. That's the question, what to do with them? They can't be held indeffinetly, can they? But if they are released, even if they are deported, they can, and probably will, be a threat to the United States. So all of you who are talking tough about war and what not answer that question. What should the gov't do with them?
2006-06-30 01:55:13 · answer #8 · answered by roary 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hmm maybe because lots of them are terrorists. When the US released a bunch of them in 2004 (i believe) 12 of them were terrorists and resumed terrorist activies. It's better to sacrifice the rights of a few people then the security of a nation. Also, if you read the news; they're getting things "straightened" up in Gitmo and theyre starting to give them military tribunals. Seeya.
2006-06-30 01:35:19 · answer #9 · answered by varsdebater_conservative 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'll answer you with a question: What gives them the right to kill more than 3000 innocient US citizens on 9/11? They are terrorists and are being treated as such.
2006-06-30 01:36:24 · answer #10 · answered by crazy_airforce_guy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What gives Al-Queda the right to take innocent lives, what gives brutal dictators the right to execute family members of those who oppose them openly. They are prisoners.....mainly of the war on terror........they are treated far better than many of the people who have been in their care.......watch your best friend burn to death......smell the stench of mass graves...see small children cry over dead bodies.....and then ask yourself the same question.....I think they receive pretty damned good treatment.
2006-06-30 01:38:47 · answer #11 · answered by mechanical_moose1981 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋