The Supreme Court has rejected military trials for detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Do you agree?
2006-06-30 07:10:24 · 11 answers · asked by nelcoll2000 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
Nope.
2006-06-30 07:13:52 · answer #1 · answered by andy14darock 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Agree or disagree, the Supreme Court has ruled in this case.
Oddly, back in World War II the Court ruled that the detention of Japanese-American CITIZENS in concentration camps was okay.
Today, military trials of foreign nationals at war with America is unconstitutional.
Neither ruling makes any sense to me.
2006-06-30 07:18:46 · answer #2 · answered by mweller1956 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's simple. If we have EVIDENCE the people we are holding are bad guys, then put them in court, find them guilty and send them to jail. The fact that Bush is so desperate not to show how flimsy his reasons are for holding these people attests to just how wrong the whole Guantanamo debacle is.
Basically, I think Bush and his neocons thought it would be a good idea to grab as many people as they could (many of whom, no doubt, were involved with Al-Queda or the Taliban), and just see what kind of information they could torture out of them. I think they assumed that if they just grabbed a big enough group, they'd uncover another 9/11 type plot, and would be hailed as heroes. Instead, they didn't get much useful information, and are now trying to find a way to wiggle out of the consequences of their actions.
2006-06-30 07:18:57 · answer #3 · answered by lamoviemaven 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I was disappointed at first with the decision, but I have to trust that the court made the right decision. It is important that justice is done and I just don't have all the facts, the law, and the geneva convention rules regarding this to say either way. I think it better to err on the side of fairness to the defendents as much as I despise what they stand for.
2006-06-30 07:15:53 · answer #4 · answered by RunningOnMT 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. These were not uniformed soldiers and have no standing in a military court. Non-uniformed partisans were not protected from immediate execution even under the Geneva Convention during WWII. I am not sure if that still stands today. Frankly, I'd shoot them all and close the prison at Gitmo.
2006-06-30 07:16:31 · answer #5 · answered by Crusader1189 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. The Supreme Court is correct. These are not military personnel in any way.
2006-06-30 11:34:34 · answer #6 · answered by Blond Logic 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I beleive Iraq government should run the trials, it is thier nation, except for the ones connected to 911
2006-06-30 12:44:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think there is a distinction between them banning them and saying the law doesn't support them. They said the law doesn't support them, therefore the congress can make a law that does. The SC doesn't make law, they just tell you what it means.
2006-06-30 07:15:31 · answer #8 · answered by natex14 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes!
They should be put on a plane and set back home.
2006-06-30 07:14:35 · answer #9 · answered by Pretty_Trini_Rican 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, let them speak. Let them tell what Americans have been doing.
2006-06-30 07:14:35 · answer #10 · answered by mazungodemisipi 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋