Guantanamo Bay, legal or illegal?

Question

Margaret Becker, UK Foreign Minister has criticised the holding of up to 450 persons as illegal, what do you think?
For me, this is yet another case of where the Yanks have gone too far!

Answer 1

Guantanomo Bay is legal.The US pay their rent.
But the people that have been imprisoned there are being held illegally and it's also morally repugnant.
If the US govt has any evidence that these people have commited a crime they should charge them and bring them before a court of law.
Some may be guilty,some may not..We can never know for sure until they have been duly processed throught he courts.
Even the US Supreme Court has told the President that what he is doing is illegal and he just chooses to ignore that. I wasn't aware that a President was above the law.

Answer 2

Illegal of course! How can anyone even question that!

All these people who say it's a good thing, bring up 9/11 and 7/7. Have you actually asked yourself whether they were personally involved in these terrorist attacks? All they did was defend a country from a foreign invader, wouldn't you do the same if your country was invaded? These people don't deserve to be tortured, if some tied you up and asked you if you had anything to do with 9/11 and then beat you everytime you said "no", I bet eventually you'd say "yes" just to stop the beating. Would that make you a terrorist?

I say, if they have terrorists there then show us the evidence, they've had YEARS to do this, so why can't they prove it yet? Why has there only been a handful of trials so far? It's obvious that they have no evidence, they've just rounded up some muslims and said "oh well, they look like they could be terrorists, so lets lock them up anyway and beat them and torture them and anally rape them with electrical appliances, after that sort of treatment they'll admit to anything we want".

Answer 3

Legal. Not sure which law exactly you're using to call it illegal, but under US, UCMJ and Geneva, it's all legal.

These are enemy combatants, irregular combatants. Legally, we could have given them summary executions where they were captured. Geneva does not protect irregular combatants who violate every tenet of the Geneva conventions. Funny how that works, eh?

Anyway, first, we are still at war. You don't release POWs until the war is over. They are indefinitely detained. Only at the conclusion of hostilities, or other agreements reached, are they freed. The war isn't over...

Then there is the fact that we are prevented from returning them to their home country if they will be executed there.. And that's what they're facing.

Which leaves tribunals. Not sure where the Supreme Court got the idea they had the authority to rule on this, or the authority to magically grant the prisoners Geneva rights they hadn't earned, but there it is.

All this sputtering and spewing about illegal and immoral or whatever is a load of codswallop, and is not based on facts or reality.

Answer 4

Well, the US Supreme Court has ordered they be given a trial. The Congress has passed a law saying they will get Military Tribunals (which are usual during a war). So while they were illegal, they are now legal as soon as these guys get their trial. It's not against any law to have a prison in Cuba.

Answer 5

The location is a legal territory on lease to the US from Cuba (pre-Castro)
The activity by the US in that location is against international law.
Even a murderer is entitled to "due proccess" like it or not.

Answer 6

Well its obvious that Magot Becker is yet another socialist lib-tard without a clue...

I wonder if Becker would mind if we put these 450 terrorist towel heads up at her estate?

How about you, wouldn't you like a handful of new playmates?

You want to brag to us just how UNINFORMED you really are?

Answer 7

as in any case you are innocent until proven guilty, and so with the argument still raging of whether the American government has committed a crime, we have to presume them innocent until a court of law finds them guilty... see the irony?

I think if you stand back for a few minutes from the 'human rights' issue, and look at this logically. if someone is 'thinking' of committing a crime and you catch them before they do it, its very easy to charge them with intent, and let them go. they get a small punishment and the crime is foiled before it happens, when someone is suspected of being a terrorist, or part of a terrorist organisation or even just informed of terrorist organisational tactics or plans, you cant just slap them on the wrist and let them go. You have to detain these people and question them until you are certain you have got all relevant information out of them. These people ARE NOT just rounded up of the street because they wear funny clothes! they are people that have connections, whether legitimately or not, with terrorists or organisations linked with terrorists.

Now lets look at the 'human rights' issues. My human right is to use public transport without fear of being blown up. Get to work and feel safe in my office block. take my family on a plane without fear of not landing. Take my family to holiday tourist sites without being shot at. That's my human right.

Answer 8

Margaret Beckett - at leaset get her name right.

It is probably illegal, which is why Bush announced 6 weeks ago he is closing it down.

Answer 9

The Americans must have bucket loads of ca£$ to waste keeping all that scum of the earth locked up.. I wouldn't be a happy bunny if I was an American Tax Payer knowing I was contributing to feeding those Toe-Rag's .. Stick them all in a Transport Plane and off-load them in Downtown Baghdad..

Answer 10

sorry i disagree their alive arnt they too far is dead.
they were put in their for the security of the country if they hadn't been dealing with terrorists than they would not be in their.
what would you do let them go to blow your family to bits in the name of Allah i don't think so