Do the Prisoners at Guantanamo fall under the category of political prisoners ? if not what differentiates them from other Political Prisoners around the world ? I know some of them might be terrorists and might be actively engaged in acts of terror and directly handling munitions but how is that different from other prisoners around the world who are held as prisoners of Conscience and for supporting sedition in third world countries ? .
2006-12-16
16:59:07
·
9 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Law & Ethics
I realize Most People will disagree with it . Please Differentiate why not ? Not having state representation does not disqualify them from being political Prisoners .
2006-12-16
17:11:50 ·
update #1
If "most of them were caught shooting at us" then that would qualify them as a militia . as by all standards members of Taliban would be judged internationally . but even if most of them were there's quite a few that were picked up at home ( at their homes ) with no arms on them .
2006-12-16
17:21:16 ·
update #2
+ I think they are considered prisoners of war. The rules of evidence and the right to hold them is different in this case.
2006-12-19 08:24:24
·
answer #1
·
answered by Clamdigger 6
·
5⤊
0⤋
No. The internees at Guantanamo Bay are military prisoners. They have no status as political prisoners since they are not being held for political reasons. They are not enemy combatants either since they were captured wearing no identification badges or uniforms as required by the Geneva Convention to establish that status.
2006-12-16 17:13:10
·
answer #2
·
answered by jotw_1 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Nope, because then they would have to give their reasons for holding them and they will not give the reasons.
The people in Guantanamo are bring held illegally; they are in Cuba because they cannot be held on US soil legally and get away with what Bush is doing by holding the men prisoner.
2006-12-16 17:01:46
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
They are by Geneva convention defintion: "Francs-tireurs." I won't go into a long-winded history of the term.
It means the fighter was not wearing a uniform, armband, or such insignia to make them readily identifiable as a combatant.
and that they would use their attire to hide amongst non-combatant civilians. Lacking such uniform or insignia they lose protection of the Geneva convention. As such they can be tried and executed if found guilty.
2006-12-17 01:48:03
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Since most of them were captured shooting at us... not wearing recognizable uniforms.. not fighting for any foreign state.. they do not come under any Geneva Convention guidelines. They should be thanking their lucky stars they have their lamb and rice Tuesdays.. and daily soccer matches at Gitmo. I would have splattered them and dumped them in the Carribean long ago.
2006-12-16 17:15:50
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Nope they are not Prisoners of War, they are Stink Terrorists who need to be treated like Animals then be Choked to death at the Gallows.
If the Army turns their Korans into Toilet Paper then I am glad, if the Army decides to serve them mush, i'll be glad too cause the Prisoners in Gitmo are very nasty and they do not deserve my sympathy at all.
If any Soldier ever gets to beat one with a Rattan Cane that Soldier deserves a Medal.
2006-12-16 17:05:41
·
answer #6
·
answered by MrCool1978 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
In my opinion the fall into the catagory of terrorists that were caught in the nick of time by our great military.
2006-12-16 18:13:27
·
answer #7
·
answered by caciansf 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. Guantanamo detainees are enemy combatants that attempted to murder or conspire to murder our troops. Most sources say that, since they are not representing a recognized nation, they are not entitled to Geneva Convention protections.
2006-12-16 17:03:45
·
answer #8
·
answered by Johnny Q. 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
No. Next question.
2006-12-16 17:01:29
·
answer #9
·
answered by yupchagee 7
·
0⤊
1⤋