2006-10-17 03:27:59 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes, just so long as they are instantly banished to a dessert enclave in Afghanistan or somewhere thereabouts
2006-10-17 03:35:45 · answer #1 · answered by westgaliberty 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
In cases of conflict there are particular regulations/rules for killings/maiming on the battlefield. commonly whilst prisoners of wars (POW) are taking they have rights under the Geneva convention articles of on how they are taken care of mutually as captive and are excused from particular kinds of acts. The Bush administration has tried many methods to circumvent calling any captives that US forces take in try against POWs, subsequently denying provisions under the Geneva convention. US very appropriate court docket have ruled in accordance to our statement of Independence and shape that every physique human beings have particular inalienable rights - manly habeas corpus. The courts have additionally ruled that if we take 'detainees' under our administration no count if or not they be on US soil or not, they are prolonged the comparable rights are rules grant for all persons dwelling interior the u . s . a .. in actuality there are various detainees at GITMO and different web content in different countries that are actually not publicly disclosed. So of the detainees have been caught in terrorist events mutually as others have been became for bounties ($10K a head). some have been released without being charged, yet maximum have been held in those prisons and tortured for years. the style of treatment is going against what's in our bill of Rights and different amendments and places the yankee image interior the comparable crowd of different illiberal states like China, Cuba, and N. Korea. For those reason many ecu democracies have been serious of the U. S.. Its interior the countries appropriate interest to convey those human beings to public scrutiny. in the event that they are in charge, grant the information and then convict them. If not, we could desire to consistently launch them. protecting absolutely everyone for years and torturing them is inhuman whilst they have not been charged for against the regulation. the two we behave as a rustic we are saying we are in our shape, or we do away with the those records and write new rules.
2016-11-23 15:53:16 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you're talking about an American lawyer, then I suppose he/she should be able to provide material support to whomever he/she wishes. It's called freedom. If you can't deal with it, why don't you go live somewhere else?
2006-10-17 03:36:18 · answer #3 · answered by Gene Rocks! 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
huh? yeah, but only because its the only way to do it legally- maybe people would be okay w/ dismissing the red tape in some issues, but as soon as we do- we would just keep doing it- the law is there for a reason- and sometimes it comes in handy- besides- w/ the way the this world keeps surprising everybody- whos to say they know what the right outcome would be
2006-10-17 03:37:45 · answer #4 · answered by nickname4anne 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Cancer? No.
If the lawyers have AIDS and want to give AIDS to their terrorist clients, I would have no problem with that.
2006-10-17 03:36:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
You have an absolute wrong idea on liberalism and conservatism. What? Are you radio taught?
2006-10-17 03:35:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No sir! And they should get far more than 27 months.
2006-10-17 03:35:27 · answer #7 · answered by Mark 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. She should've gotten 20 years hard time.
2006-10-17 03:35:15 · answer #8 · answered by Conservative Texan 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
At taxpayer expense too !!
2006-10-17 03:36:08 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋