Classified Evidence in a Trial?

Question

It really makes me wonder what the government is thinking. Guantanimo bay is a slap to the face of the constitution. Sure they aren't americans but it's illegal to hold somebody against their will with no charges not to mention immoral. That's why we have things like the bill of rights and the constitution, although not many people know what it says without looking it up I assure you what the government is doing is not right, even in the war on terror.

The government cannot bring somebody to trial and not tell them what evidence they have. Any court with any balls would laugh them out of court and tell them to let the guy go if they can't produce evidence against him.

It's not enough to simply have the evidence, you have to present it as well.

I'm no advocate of terrorist rights but I believe that if the government was really in the right then they would cut their bull and work within the constitution. What do you all think?

I'm wondering what a AMERICAN would think so if you think it's ok to hold somebody without charges just because they arent american means you arent either.

I extend my rights to the world and expect america to treat everybody like an american, were all human beings and we all have the same rights otherwise to constitution wouldnt say all men are created equal.

Answer 1

It's basically an issue of "how good are we?" Do we really have principles, or do we just try to get away with as much as we can?

It's also a question of fear and incompetence. How can it be that "secret information" is needed to convict people that the govt already claims to know are guilty of being "enemy combatants" on the "field of battle?" That doesn't require any secret evidence. The U.S. soldiers or CIA people or whoever else grabbed them would just testify that the defendant was "fighting against us on the field of battle." That's a no brainer. One would think.

Of course, the reality is that the U.S. has already released several Guantanamo prisoners after holding them for several years. There are some from Britain who recently went home and are giving media interviews. Obviously they weren't enemy combatants after all, despite the frequent claims that "everybody" at Guantanamo is a combatant, or even an Al Queda member.

To me, people who say "keep them locked up indefinitely," despite knowing all of the above facts, are not very good representatives of the U.S. They are basically saying the U.S. has no actual principles in the areas of human rights and justice. That's very embarrassing to me.

Answer 2

I agree.

Even suspected terrorists should be given their full international and constitutional rights. In Canada, we have been using something called the "security certificate" under Immigration law to argue for deportment of a suspected terrorist ... very little information on the charges is even given to the accused's lawyer and that person can be held for a long time, even if it turns out in the end, he was guilty of nothing. Thank God, the principle of "security certificates" is now before our Supreme Court.

To me, everybody is innocent until they are proven in a court of law to be guilty and both sides have complete disclosure on the issue so that the accused has the right of a full and complete defence.

Answer 3

It is not illegal to hold someone against thier will, worldwide. That's only American law. I think the Constitution only applys to Americans.....not every single human being on the planet.

I have no problem with Guantanimo...I say lock them all up.