Most have been there for 4 1/2 years. How is this consistent with US principles?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/01/AR2006090101535.html
2006-09-02 00:13:03 · 12 answers · asked by TxSup 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Perhaps I should specify - Guantanamo is in Cuba - this is where prisoners, mostly taken from Afghanistan were put.
2006-09-02 00:39:51 · update #1
The US originally said they would be trying the prisoners under military tribunals, delayed setting up these tribunals, only charged a few.
2006-09-02 00:46:33 · update #2
Boot, you sound like a parody of a conservative. You are saying they are all guilty because they were arrested.
2006-09-02 00:49:39 · update #3
Someone is arrested, and that's the end of their legal process, they can be jailed for years? How is this the American way?
2006-09-02 00:52:03 · update #4
Embarrassment - - - most of them are probably goat herders who were in the wrong place at the wrong time - - - swept up by over zealous soldiers who had no way to way to ask them any proper questions since The US went into Afghanistan with a shortage of translators. It is awfully hard to try a person when their only crime is that they are suspected of being a Muslim. Many of them will simply 'disappear.'
2006-09-02 00:25:00 · answer #1 · answered by JVHawai'i 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because under international laws, we cannot try them. If we were allowed charging them, then every time we win a war, we get to try , not just 450 of them, but all of them. Iit would open a whole pandora box. International laws are there for a reason. Some of us like to ignore them when it fits us. Some of us like to charge them out of a thirst for revenge, and knowing we're still winning the war. If we were losing the war, we wouldn't be pushing for charging prisoners of war, because it would be our soldiers that will be charged and hung to death. Remember that the US was the only country that opposed the formation of an internal criminal court system to deal with such nuanced cases. And yet, now we are making our own courts, disregarding all international standards and opinions.
For most of those held in Guantanamo, we have no idea who they really are, they just happened to be there inside the battle zone and swept up. Even the US army doesn't know who they are, hence the difficulty with knowing how to charge them or with what. If they get charged, it will not be under the public eye, it will be held in special tribunals with no external checks and balances. We can easily charge and convict them with whatever we want. In no other times in our history has our values, and laws been so twisted and bent to fit our wimps. It's, however, a slippery slope; the repercutions are hard to gauge in the long term. At stake are our very own rights and freedoms and those of our kids. Interesting and dangerous time we live in...
2006-09-02 07:56:10 · answer #2 · answered by Mike V 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am really looking forward on what legal specifications are we going to use, since there is absolutely nothing in the Law of Land Warfare, or the Geneva Convention that entitles them to anything. As a great country, and with a highly professional military we treated them according to the Geneva Convention as much as possible.
These are "Terrorist" not uniformed soldiers fighting for their country.........I think they all need to be executed, including the 3 Americans who were fighting along side the Taliban in Afghanistan.
2006-09-02 07:54:15 · answer #3 · answered by Fitforlife 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Giving them a trial will create a chance that they could be set free. This is a change from our basic principles of freedom and justice, but the world has changed in the past 5 years. We must not let our enemies use our policies against us. These people were not in the US so they do not have the rights of someone captured here.
2006-09-02 07:23:07 · answer #4 · answered by Jack S. Buy more ammo! 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It is against the Geneva Conventions to try prisoners of war in court. Enemy soldiers are not considered criminals. But these guys aren't even enemy "soldiers"...
As "spies and saboteurs" attacking as civilians, they don't even get the protections of the Geneva Conventions. Because of that status, battlefield commanders have the option of simply shooting them in the head when they are caught. That is an internationally recognized status.
The military is erring on the side of leniency and releasing many for whom there is doubt about their enemy status. Sadly, some of those released have been caught again or killed on the battlefield. One went and blew up a night club in Egypt, killing a bunch of folks...
2006-09-02 07:22:05 · answer #5 · answered by speakeasy 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's kind of like keeping a vicious dog locked in a cage. You know it is cruel, but if you let it out, it will bite someone. These animals have sworn to kill and will if let go.
So, do you keep them locked up where they can do no harm, shoot them as the Geneva Convention allows, or turn them loose to continue their desire to kill?
These are not your run-of-the-mill soldier. These are disciples of Bin Laden and will kill again if given the chance.
2006-09-02 07:54:06 · answer #6 · answered by rikv77 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Under International law, there is nothing to charge them with- Fighting for the Country where you live is not a crime. They are POW's and the Geneva Convention spells out how they must be dealt with.
2006-09-02 07:19:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I guess the laws governing prisoners of war are entirely different from the laws which we are governed.
2006-09-02 07:18:02 · answer #8 · answered by WC 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They mostly are going to be charged and tried by the Iraqi government, when/if they establish one.
2006-09-02 07:16:39 · answer #9 · answered by DelusionRoad 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Shooting them would probably make more sense. Most, if not all, are scum. You don't end up in the places they were picked up by accident. Get a CLUE, liberal.
2006-09-02 07:41:40 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋