http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070531/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/guantanamo_suicide
2007-05-31 09:39:37 · 15 answers · asked by Bush Invented the Google 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes, I know he was a terrorist. Why was he never charged? Clearly we had the evidence, so what was the problem with charging him with the crimes so WE could punish him instead of letting him commit suicide?
2007-05-31 09:45:01 · update #1
He's not detained because of "criminal activities", but because he's a prisoner of war. Persons fighting against the US, captured on the battlefield, are taken prisoner because they're enemies, not criminals.
Also, because the taliban and jihadists are not signatories or followers of the Geneva conventions, they do not have a right to any of the protections guaranteed by it. In fact, they are irregular combatants who could have been summarily executed when they were captured, all in accordance with all the accepted rules of war.
They also have no right to a trial in a civilian court, to a speedy trial or to even a trial at all. Enemy prisoners taken in war have typically been processed thru military tribunals who adjudicate what happens to them.
2007-05-31 10:10:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The detainees are protection rigidity prisoners, no longer criminals. protection rigidity prisoners are not charged with crimes. they are detained until some thing happens to get them released. normally interior the previous, that has been the cessation of hostilities, whereupon they could be repatriated to their homestead worldwide places. yet that's an ongoing, uneven conflict. determining a element of ending is problematic. And for plenty of those detainees, their homestead worldwide places do no longer want them returned. inspite of the shown fact that, as unlawful combatants, they may be, and could be, tried via a protection rigidity tribunal and then hanged. the US has long reserved the terrific to execute unlawful combatants. those are people who have been the two captured on the battlefield, have been nicely-accepted al Qaeda operatives, or have been pointed out as al Qaeda or different terrorist operatives. they have been by way of some type of assessment boards which the two established their detention, or chanced on there to no longer be sufficient tips to maintain their detention. hundreds have been repatriated, and, regretfully, relatively some those decrease back to terrorist events. As for the idiotic declare that we torture them there, that's basically no longer the fact. So end being caught on stupid relating to the unsubstantiated accusations of torture. Or the claims of innocence.
2016-11-24 19:31:49 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Where in there does it say he was a terrorist? It says he was fighting with the Taliban as an enemy combatant. It doesn't even suggest he was involved with, or ever going to be involved with, any terrorist activities.
And as to why he wasn't charged? That's the whole purpose of Gitmo. Detainees there never have to be charged with anything, or shown the reason for their detention. All it takes is the claim that they are an enemy combatant or a terrorist, and they can be locked up.
2007-05-31 09:51:04 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The goverment no longer works for the people but the almighty dollar
the police are gostopo like the natzis and the jails are so over populated it's like a sovient camp
every time someone gets arrested the state makes money now the only to not be detained is if you work for us and give us information on other terrorist or they'll do like they did with JFK
2007-05-31 09:48:58 · answer #4 · answered by charleene o 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He was a religious person only doing what he thought was the right thing to do, part of the reason I think we are in Iraq is because our President talks with his god and he told him to go and fight the Islamic fundamentalists we call terrorists. Oh happy day, religion to the rescue.
2007-05-31 09:47:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Charged? With what?
He was captured on the battlefield. He was to be held until the enemy surrendered.
2007-05-31 09:47:53 · answer #6 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why are you taking the word of a news reporter as if they were holy ?
belive nothing that you read in the media.
http://www.amazon.com/You-Are-Being-Lied-Disinformation/dp/0966410076
read this.
2007-05-31 10:02:01 · answer #7 · answered by elgrandeguevos 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps we didn't have enough "substantial" eviedence to charge him. :D (Kinda like the 9/11 report about WMD's in Iraq)
2007-05-31 09:47:33 · answer #8 · answered by Wyco 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
He was a foreign enemy combatant in afghanistan.
He was a terrorist.
2007-05-31 09:43:08 · answer #9 · answered by infobrokernate 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
terrorist should have just shot him
2007-05-31 09:44:05 · answer #10 · answered by infoman89032 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋