How long should people be held without charges ?

Question

Re Guantanemo Bay detainees... yes, some are certainly bad men, but they've been in jail for 4 or so years with no charges being laid...

I believe what sets 'developed' nations apart is that rights are protected, but once rights become 'selective' they disappear! Just as a murderer in the US should face court and be tried and sentenced - or released if there isn't enough evidence - shouldn't these people have the same rights ? Isn't 4 years is enough time to build a case ? And if it can't be done in 4, perhaps it can't in 6 or 8 or 10 years ! We must let murderers who we 'know' did the crime go if we can not build a case against them, that is the foundation of our justice system. If there are charges to be laid, sure, punish them to the full extent of THE LAW !

In any of these 'dilemmas', I always reverse the roles, and see if my reasoning stands... Wouldn't you be outraged if other countries were detaining our combatants in this same way ?

Your (reasoned) thoughts please...

Some of the answers assume that these people are proven suicide bombers... something wrong with your logic there !

Answer 1

Internment without trial is a disaster: it was tried in Northern Ireland in 1971 and just helped boost the IRA's cause as it turned the detainees into political prisoners and martyrs. Now the same is happening with the Gitmo prisoners, whether they are guilty or not, it's another excuse for Al-Qaeda and related groups to attack the West.

The USA was traditionally always quick to criticise Britain's actions in NI so it should have learned from our mistakes there.

Answer 2

That is a universal question....which comes first the rights of the individual or the rights of the state.

Of course, the rights of the state are more important and the security of a nation is non-negotiable. President Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeus corpus (produce the body), during the Civil War.

To answer the question. As President of the United States, President George Bush is in charge of the security of this nation and swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

In times of war and the rights of detainees should be looked upon in that context. War.

Because of the war in the Middle East, the laws that satisfy the combatants during war must be afforded the combatants, military and/or insurgents, not according to the Constitution of the United States, but, according to the Geneva Convention. So, as to give prisoners on both sides certain rights and be treated equally and fairly, from either side.

It is not the Constitution of the United States that is under scrutiny, but, the treatment of all prisoners according to the Geneva Convention.

Answer 3

These are not their soldiers & there is not even any doubt of their innocence. The ones they were not sure of were released. This is among others Sadamm's body guard & driver. When charged it allows the corrupt International Courts involved. There is a reason the UN has no power, the corruption is flowing through it.
They will be tried shortly.

Answer 4

Congress decided that these detainees do not deserve the writ of habeas corpus. If released, these people pose a threat to our nations citizens, not just our soldiers. And no, if our US citizens were suicide bombing other countries citizens, I wouldn't have a problem with them being held indeffinitely.

Answer 5

an same as the different suspected criminal. You both have regulations and use them, or yuo do not. in case you imprison someone for 28 days without something better than suspicion, you may want to do what you want to them for the period of that element to get a "confession" out of them. Witness the Birmingham 6 etc

Answer 6

American citizens...? I think no longer than 24 hours. War criminals who vow to continue their acts of terror, whenever.

Answer 7

not 1 has lost his head

Answer 8

Find another cause to complain about. We are at war.