Since he has prisoners sent to countries that allow torture in order to have them tortured and say 'we didn't do it' (called rendition), I was wondering if there was a similar reason he is using Cuba?
2006-07-02 08:33:28 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
First off, ignore that Sam guy. I have seen him around here a little and he really is insulting to everybody and doesn't know much. But of course he 'thinks' he knows it all. He can't answer a question without asking the person some dumb indefensive question that implies they don't know what they are talking about. LOL
I'm actually impressed that you are familiar with rendition. That right there proves that you are more educated on what is really going on than the average population.
As far as Cuba, I'm not sure if you are asking if rendition is allowed in Cuba and maybe that is why he has them there? If that is the case (and it might be), it has not made the news yet that I have seen. Other than rendition, I'm not sure what gains he would have except for just being close to our borders without actually having them here.
Oh and I'd be willing to bet with the prison being in Cuba that it makes it very difficult for reporters to try to spy on it. Could you imagine if it were somewhere in the states? LOL OMG the amount of protestors would be overwhelming outside the gates.
2006-07-02 09:09:10 · answer #1 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
They are held there because there are people here in the US that would try to give them the same rights as a citizen if they were held in the United States. These prisoners were not conventional military forces, thus they are not even covered by the Geneva Convention. This puts them into a gray area. We needed time to question them and determine which ones were the ones that we needed to hold indefinitely. This is why there has been some large releases of the prisoners. There is no clear cut procedure for dealing with prisoners that are not covered by the Geneva Convention, so we are treating them similarly, but without a government to negotiate their return they are in limbo. If they were released they would go right back to plotting attacks. Not allowable.
2006-07-02 17:37:03 · answer #2 · answered by Norm 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pretty close. Legally speaking, Guantanamo Bay is Cuban territory (we signed a lease agreement with the government that Castro overthrew and have continued paying the lease, though Castro refuses to accept the money) so American law may not apply there. That is one of the arguments the Supreme Court didn't take up in its latest ruling, by the way.
2006-07-02 15:36:57 · answer #3 · answered by J C 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you would actually study such things as history instead of being led about by your nose you would not ask such stupid and ill-informed questions.
Bet you have never read a single non-fiction book that you weren't made too.
2006-07-02 15:38:33 · answer #4 · answered by sam21462 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We've been doing this since Vietnam
2006-07-02 15:35:24 · answer #5 · answered by Tahmid R 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋