Some questions regarding human rights?

Question

1.Why guantanmo prisioners have no rights.
2.If there is no mass distruction weopensfound in Iraq, why Army is still there.
3.Why no solid proof provided for involving osama in 9/11.
4.Why Isreal dropped cluster bombs into civilians at Lebnan.

Answer 1

When did you stop beating your girlfriend?

Answer 2

Let's address #1, since this is Law and Ethics.

The simple answer is that they do have rights. The US Supreme Court has confirmed this. Now, you're going to hear a lot of people argue that they aren't US citizens and thus the Constitution doesn't protect them. However, those people have either never actually read the constitution, or they had a really bad con law professor.

The 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments are not written to provide rights to citizens. They are written as limitations on government action. Look at the text. "No warrant shall issue...". "No person shall be held...". "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall ..." None of those refer to citizens, or say that the government can ignore the rules because they really don't like someone a lot.

Read Article I Section 9. "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus..." (access to the federal courts to challenge a detention) "... shall not be suspended..." And "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed", meaning that Congress cannot declare someone guilty and take away they freedom without a trial.

These are limitations on what the government can do, regardless of who the government is doing it to. So, the question is not why do the prisoners have rights. The question is, why does the govt think it can ignore the limitations placed on it by the Constitution.

---------------------

As to #4, short answer. Becuase it was a fast way to effectively land-mine the area and prevent it from being quickly reoccupied by hostile forces.

Answer 3

1. In fact they do have human rights, since they are human beings. They should not be deprived of these basic rights regardless of the policies of the current US Administration, since the USA signed their agreement to abide by the Geneva convention. The current US Administration believes they can ignore any conventions of war, simply by declaring these men "illegal combatants". This works both ways however; the USA did not formally declare war according to the requirements of international law and ignored protocol when they attacked Afghanistan and Iraq. Consequently, if the people of Iraq or Afghanistan or the people of -any-other-country-of-the-world- who was signatory to the Geneva convention wants to call Americans, "Illegal combatants" and throw Americans into a hellhole prison - They are now justified. The USA no longer has any chance to appeal for release of it's citizens on the basis of International law - since the USA no longer has a legitimate diplomatic standing to negotiate any justice for actions against it's own people. In fact beyond calling on it's own military - for every little issue they have no credibility now, even when calling upon a dwindling number of allies. If the next administration doesn't reverse this trend by abolishing the Guantánamo Bay facility there will be very few "diplomatic" solutions to any conflicts with any other nation - and no one else to help when they may one day need it.
2. The US military is there to take control of the oil, it was never about WMDs that was just an excuse to start a war, as it will be in Iran.
3. The US Administration doesn't care if there is proof or not, they are not going after Osama anyway, he is too effective as a puppet monster used to herd the American public opinion and congress into spending trillions for a fake war that makes them very rich men. George W Bush has openly stated to the press that the war in Iraq never had any connection to 9-11 and we know that the WMDs were just another scare tactic - so what's left as a reason to go to war - except oil?
4. Israel was attempting to cause enough confusion and hysteria to keep people from asking the question "Why did Hezbollah kill eight Israeli soldiers but decided to capture two?" In a military action there is only one reason to capture the enemy rather than killing them - to extract some significant intelligence from the pow which cannot be derived by satellite photos or other more passive forms of espionage or reconnaissance.

Answer 4

Guantanmo prisoners do not belong to any regular army-
just bandits.
It was wrong to invade Iraq to destroy WMD, which proved
to be a concocted intllegence.
Osma indirectly incriminated himself.
Isreal used cluster bombs to hurt Hisbolla, civilians were
sheltering the foreign fighters.

Answer 5

1. They do have some, but if they do the crime, they can do the time...
2. Ask the Government.
3. again Ask the Government
4. Because they could, and Ask the Government.
Most governments know more than the public on any situation, but do not tell the public with good reason. Some things that happen if release to the public would cause Mass Panic, and that would be just the beginning. (So we should ask ourselves if we would tell our kids everything that goes on or is it better to sugar coat everything, something to ponder..)

Answer 6

This question would be better directed to Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush.

Answer 7

If you did some research all of your questions can be answered on the Internet. Quite being lazy and do the research!