The United States is a nation of laws. We believe in our Constitutional rights above all else. If American Citizens were being held indefinitely with benefit of trial we would be outraged. Yet we condone this behavior for detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Now I am not advocating that these people should be released outright, or given the rights of American citizens, but how can we condone indefinite detention in absence of formal charges and trial. How is this different from say the Soviet Union jailing political dissidents in its Gulags? A practice most of us found appalling by the way. Consider the quote below from Commander Jeffrey Gordon, a Defense Department spokesman on the matter and then give me your thoughts.
"The government does not have enough evidence to try the bulk of detainees in a federal court system, yet maintained that releasing them would be foolhardy."
http://www.boston.com/news/world/latinamerica/articles/2007/06/11/no_signs_of_phaseout_for_guantanamo/
2007-07-31 10:58:53 · 11 answers · asked by Bryan 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The second sentence should read without benefit of trial. Not with.
2007-07-31 11:10:18 · update #1
ed j: I am in my fourties, not exactly wet behind the ears. The problem in my opinion is that many people do condone it. Their opinion is that these people are terrorists and deserve no rights whatsoever. I find it to be a very slippery slope when people start to condone indefinte detention without benefit of trial. Especially when it goes against everything we are supposed to believe in as a society and rights that we all claim for ourselves and often take for granted.
2007-07-31 11:54:45 · update #2
m1a1mikegolf: First, I have no blood on my hands. Second, if you read my statements I did not advocate releasing anyone. What I said is that I have a problem with indefinite detention without benefit of charges and trial.
2007-07-31 12:02:03 · update #3
.... . .-.. .-.. ---: It would be an interesting thought, but unfortunately that creates a whole different set of ethical dilemmas.
2007-07-31 12:18:29 · update #4
The sad thing is, the reason why they cannot be formally charged and given a proper hearing is that Bush & Co. already authorized the torture of these criminals during their interrogation.
Therefore, the courts would have no choice but to let them go free.
If they would have performed proper interrogations (w/o the use of torture), there would have been no issues with going through the US legal system.
If they are guilty, it would have been a 'no-brainer' to get a jury of their American peers to find their a_sses guilty along with a death sentence.
2007-07-31 11:05:31 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Because trying them like you state would be a violation of international law.
The rules that apply to them are: 1949 Geneva Conventions (IV) and Hague 1907.
As a belligerent party we have the right to hold persons captured on the battlefield for the duration of hostilities.
Trivia note: The 2004 school massacre in Russia was organized by a person we released from Gitmo. How many innocent people's blood do you want on your hands because we released a terrorist to kill again?
2007-07-31 11:45:01 · answer #2 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No I'm not okay with it. Just imagine how angry you'd get for being held a prisoner day in and day out and not knowing exactly why you were being held? And then being tortured in order to say something that may not be true, but that someone else wanted to hear you say?
Bush & Co are creating many of these terrorists by condoning practices like this.
2007-07-31 11:22:24 · answer #3 · answered by Lily Iris 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
the Geneva convention does not require that persons who do not qualify as infantrymen receive any particular rights, nor a speedy trial. It does enable them to be tried with the aid of defense force court docket martial and, if discovered accountable of appearing as, or in help of, a valid opponent, shot. because of the fact the U. S. Senate ratified the Geneva convention, it somewhat is the regulation of the land, comparable to any Act of Congress. it somewhat is, of path, precisely an identical criminal reasoning as placed forth with the aid of George W. Bush.
2016-10-13 06:38:30 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
United States citizens are guaranteed a right to speedy trial. Non US citizens do not have this right. If they allegedly committed a crime in our land, why do they get the same rights as citizens if this country?
2007-07-31 11:13:29 · answer #5 · answered by krupsk 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In WW2, people caught engaging in combat or espionage while not wearing uniforms were called spies. They were not protected under the Geneva conventions because they were not fighting under them. They were usually interrogated and then executed.
Maybe we should treat the unlawful combatants at Guantanamo the same way?
2007-07-31 11:02:42 · answer #6 · answered by Uncle Pennybags 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
"WE" do not condone this action. gwb condones it, there is a difference.
There is a definite parallel between what had been going on in Germany during the 1930's and what is happening here in this country lately.
But then I am probably a bit older than you, and see things in a different light.
2007-07-31 11:14:54 · answer #7 · answered by ed j 1 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Then why not release them if they agree to have a tracking devise implanted in their body?
2007-07-31 11:31:42 · answer #8 · answered by .... . .-.. .-.. --- 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
people in prison are not held like that. people in prison have already been to court and given time in prison
2007-07-31 12:51:19 · answer #9 · answered by charlsyeh 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
this is all part of the modern day colonialist military industrial complex. we sacrificed our rights, freedom, and the lives of millions to become the largest industrial killing machine the world has ever seen. this isn't america it's the fukcing death star. were all people who needs countries anyway?
2007-07-31 11:09:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋