2006-09-20 09:56:46 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Great answers so far. Really gets at the differences in the way people think.
2006-09-20 10:50:42 · update #1
No, what the **** kind of question is that?
Before they detain them, they should prove in a court of law, that they are terrorists.
2006-09-20 09:58:36 · answer #1 · answered by stephaniemariewalksonwater 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What ever we do in this country, keep in mind other countries will return the favor! I think we need a process in place to deal with the problem at hand! You can't just keep sweeping it under the rug because it's never going to go away!
If we are going to take prisoners (to which I'm totally against) then we have to deal with the consequences accordingly and within the terms of the law whether being our own or international!
I think if you're on the battlefield your mission is quite clear and you have volunteered for the consequences of your actions-PERIOD! We're already over whelmed with prisoners why are we taking on more????????
And then you have to ask yourself the author's question again! How are terrorist being treated any different than American citizens charged with a crime? The media portrays you as some kind of beast from day one! How's that for justice and the "innocent until proven guilty" scharade? It's all propaganda for the politicians! Divides the parties for election day results!
2006-09-24 09:31:48 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do you mean you should shoot them first and take them to court later, or imprison them without evidence for years while never taking them to court?
Both are against the Human Rights declaration and the Geneva Convention, so under international law this should not be done. However there is wiggle room to extend normal time limits in the case of improving national security:
2006-09-20 17:10:14 · answer #3 · answered by Chris C 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are absolutely right. Suspects, not convicts, are detained indefinitely in the camps which are not subject to the control of civilian authority, they are being denied all rights as POWs and instead a new classification of "Enemy combatants" is coined for them. They are being held for a number of years, without any proceedings started against them, what kind of a justice system is it? Are we living in an era of cavemen?
2006-09-20 17:07:24 · answer #4 · answered by Rustic 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe terrorists are neither criminals or POWs. So I do not believe they should be afforded the rights of criminals or enemy soldiers. The stakes are just too high to worry about what their rights ought to be.
2006-09-20 17:06:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes.
They were caught on the battlefield, and they are not subject to the traditional criminal justice process. Personally, I think we'd be a lot better off if our troops didn't take prisoners.
2006-09-20 16:59:23 · answer #6 · answered by rustyshackleford001 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
works for me. Terrorist do not get the same privileges of law as US citizens enjoy.
2006-09-20 16:59:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
should we let them stay at the Hilton too? No, they are war criminals and different rules apply. Don't side with the enemy
2006-09-20 16:59:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don'tknow...are they criminals or POW's? That makes the difference.
2006-09-20 16:59:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋