Because the Bush administration knew that bringing them here would trigger their full rights under the constitution. In other words he pulled a fast one - a legal trick. It blinded the US public by burying them under a legal morass that they knew would take time to unravel. Legal? Maybe, but I doubt it. Ethical? Absolutely not.
2006-10-17 16:15:00 · 11 answers · asked by notme 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I agree it was unethical after the fall of the Taliban. Before that he could've gotten away with the idea it was a POW camp. Now he has no excuse, which is why the Supreme Court slapped his a$$.
2006-10-17 16:20:00 · answer #1 · answered by MEL T 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The basic reason Gitmo probadly because they didnt want the ALCU to represent them for free, or some other pro bono lawyer looking for publicy. Bush and Cheny didnt want information of Bushs dirty little payouts to Saudi Arabia to be mentioned. Its sick and twisted game played by the MI6 and the CIA, and they dont want the people to know Saudi Arabia was involved as a govemrent since this would shoot oil prices thru the roof.
2006-10-17 16:26:15 · answer #2 · answered by ram456456 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are terrorists that were trying to kill our soldiers/citizens, including you . You stand up for them because you know that you are 1 person out of 300 million, and they would not kill you just by probability, but what about our soldiers/other citizens that they would have killed? Do you not care about them? Are you just psyched and able to complain because you know that it just woudn't have been you that they killed? You are really brave when you're not going to die.
I think the government should be allowed to do whatever they need to in order to protect the citizens of this country, even though I probably will not die in a terrorist attack.
2006-10-17 16:22:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
the substantial reason is so shall we interrogate them to earnings education that ought to foil terrorist plots without out having whiny liberals crying "Boo frickity hoo" approximately their rights. We have been attempting to shop American lives yet it somewhat is something which you does no longer understand approximately when you consider which you have no longer served in the two the protection tension or regulation enforcement.
2016-12-08 16:32:59 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Simple to torure then on foreign soil Guantanamo. If they had to bring them to the USA the government would be breaking the US laws that why
2006-10-17 16:20:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
check out this link. PBS Frontline, very credible. I tried to contact your e-mail, but you don't have a link. This isn't about this question really, but is the only way I can contact you. Thought you'd want to know...you're one of the good guys.
here was my question:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjrvUMkMeFklb8WdiNBNppLsy6IX?qid=20061017201015AAlaYas
open the link
2006-10-17 16:22:58 · answer #6 · answered by Ford Prefect 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
still asking the same question? One more time Terrorists do not have the rights you and I enjoy and since you like protecting them maybe you should visit gitmo
2006-10-17 16:18:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The potential for isolation.
Go big Red Go
2006-10-17 16:17:30 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
That is so wrong. Those people are human beings too. They shouldn't be kept locked up like that. They have families and children who are worried about them.
2006-10-17 16:19:33 · answer #9 · answered by Alice in Wonderland 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
he put them there because they are POWs to be housed separately from US prisoners
2006-10-17 16:18:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋