Under international law, detaining prisoners without charge at Guantanamo Bay is criminal. It is sickening that a country whose citizens bleat on about Freedom and liberty should allow this to happen. What would you do if your government held you for several years in a detention centre for several years without bringing charges against you? Would you still believe that your government was commited to Freedom?
2007-01-14 23:41:28 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The people who get lemon peppered chicken,prayer rugs,and continue to throw their body waste at our soldiers there at club Gitmo were caught shooting at our soldiers..,so sell your gypsy voodoo tonic to someone who will buy it.Oh those poor poor terrorists..,they are just soooooooo mistreated.
Or are you just upset because maybe you have family members there?Are you a terrorist?You have a bleeding heart for them.
2007-01-15 00:10:01 · answer #1 · answered by jnwmom 4 · 2⤊ 4⤋
I don't know if it proves the US is a criminal state, but you are right about the unlawful detaining of possibly innocent people.
In Australia there are people who are refugees mind, not supposed or suspected terrorists, being held in camps, until it is proven that they are REAL refugees. And then there is David Hicks, mentioned by Joybell. This is totally unacceptable. The man just happened NOT to believe in the American Way, and held strong convictions about Arab countries.(Yes I know there are pics of him holding a gun, but, sheesh, this proves nothing). This doesn't make him a criminal or a terrorist, and the US has no right to hold him anywhere. The Australian Government has done nothing to protect an Australian citizen who should not be being held by the Yanks. The US isn't THE LAW, and have no right to impose their laws on the rest of us. And the US didn't save the rest of the World during WW2, they didn't come into it till it was just about over. I only add that, because any Americans reading will undoubtedly make this pointless and incorrect comment.
2007-01-15 00:01:01 · answer #2 · answered by Kesta♥ 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
it ought to seem that a number of your responders are complicated your question about the power itself with a question about the prisoners at the moment saved there. i experience the reformatory serves a objective and should be saved. notwithstanding, I also believe that detainees now there ought to take delivery of a "honest" path (as on the fringe of honest as shall we make it, as difficult as which will maximum probable be). Does that recommend they should be presented to the U.S.? i do not see how we are able to (very actual) carry the rigors any incorrect way. for sure the bigger difficulty is what do you do after the paths? With someone stumbled on accountable, what's a in simple terms sentence and the position do you position them? Guantanamo Bay sounds like the right position to me. And extra sturdy yet, what of those stumbled on not accountable: How do you're making up for the prolonged unlawful detention, and the position do they go?
2016-11-23 19:26:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes I think it is illegal to hold any person without trial.
There must be a time limit of bieng held without trial.
If a person is suspected of a crime, then prove it, and jail that person, but to hold without trial or charge for 5 years or more is barbaric.In My opinion,the people of a country who profess freedom and free speech for all, can not truly be a free country, while allowing the powers that be to control lives like that.
I hope the people of america see sense, and demand 'JUSTICE"
for all men.
2007-01-15 00:06:16 · answer #4 · answered by pa69oldfart 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
No. Club Gitmo is not on US soil. Furthermore, int'l law is irrelevant in America, and I suggest you get comfortable with that. The Un knows if they try enforcing their commie nonsense laws on the US, we will take our ball and go home.
Now, that said, I do NOT believe our gov't is comitted to freedom. That comes from the people, NOT govt.
2007-01-15 00:02:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
The answer to your main question is 'yes'.
Tom - there's a difference between terrorists and suspected terrorists. Currently, G-Bay detains suspected terrorists - individuals who have not been convicted of any crime - and subjects them to greater hardship than people who have been tried and convicted of actual crimes.
Does it make me a bleeding heart liberal to say that I'm unhappy with the fact that convicted rapists, paedophiles and murderers in US prisons enjoy comparative luxury compared to the detainees in Guanatanmo?
2007-01-14 23:45:16 · answer #6 · answered by bonshui 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
No, we are in a war and enemy combatants must be held. The problem is that these terrorists are sworn to kill us. Where can they be released and not endanger our nation?
Taking them prisoner created the problem. There are really no rules in warfare.
2007-01-15 00:41:19 · answer #7 · answered by david42 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
It does sicken me that we're keeping these people in prison camps in Guantanamo Bay. We should be treating them the same way they've treated the American soldiers and civilians that they've captured. Behead them.
2007-01-14 23:59:36 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Yes
2007-01-14 23:49:41 · answer #9 · answered by bisquedog 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Well excuse the Hell out of US ! We like to take RATS that fly planes into our buildings and interrogate them, when the Hell has any other country observed the "Geneva convention", I also have noticed, that everyone who bashes the U.S. is very hesitant to reveal what country of origin that THEY are from, whats the matter ? EMBARRASSED BY YOUR COUNTRY ? I have NO PROBLEM being proud to be an AMERICAN ! Are you proud of what you are all about "Chizza", by the looks of your Avatar, you people have dirt roads, and NO toilets !
2007-01-14 23:55:44 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
I agree with you! They have held David Hicks there for the last 5 years without charge. My own Government makes me sick because they should be lobbying the Americans to release him if they are not going to charge him. They couldn't get away with it in America - the people would be up in arms! It's against the Geneva Convention and the UN Treatise for detainees. Hussein was blamed for doing the very same thing - such hypocrisy!
2007-01-14 23:48:45 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 5⤋