And that the U.S. Constitution covers and protects U.S. citizens only? If these were people legally residing on U.S. soil who were arrested for some crime here, then yes they would have the rights garunteed by the Constitution, but as they were fighters captured in battle against U.S. troops they are akin to the P.O.W's and are only protected by the Geneva Convention. I'm sick of the America bashers and Bush bashers whining about how these captives are being mistreated and how they have a right to a speedy trial. No they don't. Do any of you cry and whine as much about the mistreatment of the American and British prisoners who've had their bloody heads sawn off? I'd say that constitutes a violation of some manner of rights.
2007-11-26 07:51:32 · 10 answers · asked by MikeyG 6 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Well if you start to run short of some terrorists, we have ******** thousands of them here in the UK.
I would not like to see such a wonderful facility go unused!
And please feel free to bring down (shoot to kill policy?) any that want to escape!
2007-11-26 08:14:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
According to the Bush administration, they are NOT Prisoners of War.
If they were, they would be afforded Geneva Conventions protections.
Bush labeled them as "Enemy Combatants" so he could circumvent the Constitution.
If they are guilty, why did Bush let so many of them go free?
If they committed a crime, why does Bush refuse them a trial?
If you look back at the news reports, and not just the Fox Propaganda, you would find that the beheadings started as a result of Bush's torture policy in Abu Ghraib.
Bush is the America basher.
He continues to undermine the constitution to put all Americans in danger of Fascism.
2007-11-26 16:13:00 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
It is difficult for people to realize that the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are prisoners of war because the US government has officially defined them as *not* POWs, and therefore not covered by the Geneva Convention. You need to review the legal position of the Administration before defending it vociferously; they are not POWs per the Bush Administration. And they are not protected by the Geneva Convention. Read Alberto Gonzalez's legal brief in this regard.
2007-11-26 15:59:53 · answer #3 · answered by snowbaal 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
While I pretty much agree with everything you've said...I do think we need to process the people being held there. Military tribunals work for me. Either determine that they are a real threat (lock them up and throw away the key) or determine that they can be released to the custody of their country of origin.
And perhaps we are doing that. I know that many of the prisoners there actually fear being released to their home countries...where they would be treated far worse and possibly executed.
As far as their rights go, they have it pretty easy there and most of them know it.
2007-11-26 16:24:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
You're kidding no one with that excuse.Every person on this planet is entitled to a fair trial.The Americans lost any moral high-ground on this one by thinking they could just shift the goalposts to suit themselves.What do they have to fear from allowing these men a trial.Does it not concern you that perfectly innocent men may be in Guantanamo?Are you not aware of the cases of neighbours fingering innocent people just to collect the American dollar.People whisked away to languish for years simply on another persons word and then given no chance of justice.Yes people have been be-headed but you don't go round locking people up for years on no evidence,two wrongs don't make a right.Why do you think the world has seen fit to berate America over this?It's quite plainly wrong.How do you justify rendition and water boarding and torture.
On his way home to Canada, Maher Arar, born in Syria, was taken into custody at JFK airport in New York. He was deported via Jordan to Syria where he was detained. He was physically and mentally tortured. After more than a year in Syria, he was released without charge.WITHOUT CHARGE.(sourced from Amnesty International)
This is an American administration with no morals now and it doesn't care what the rest of the world says.If America cannot be seen to be just then how can it claim any moral high ground and criticise injustice elsewhere.
2007-11-26 16:24:47 · answer #5 · answered by Misty Blue 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
I agree with most of what you have said. There is a time and place for everything...feeling sorry for terrorists is not the ideal way to express oneself. One should be more concerned with allowing them to be set free, only to continue their hate-filled careers. However, it would be more humane to weed out those who were caught up in the sweep by accident...those who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. With regard to our President, it will not matter who is in office. There will be those who complain.
2007-11-26 16:07:19 · answer #6 · answered by Darke Angel 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
they would be prisoners of war if.
1 they were member of the armed forces of a country we were at war with.
2 wore the uniform of that country.
3 if they were soldiers not criminals
there terrorist screw them let them rot.
2007-11-27 02:50:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
These prisoners have been charged with murder. They have not been deemed as POWs. That means they are supposed to be in a regular prison and are entitled to a fair trail by a regular judge and jury. They are being kept in a military prison and are not being properly represented by a lawyer as they are entitled to based on the official charges of murder.
In fact, one of the prisoners has a witness who can clear his name, but the US gov't and military won't allow him/her to testify.
2007-11-26 16:12:58 · answer #8 · answered by kenoplayer 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
WELL SAID MIKEY!!
Have a star:)) as concerning the beheadings, good point.
2007-11-26 15:53:20 · answer #9 · answered by ditto 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
not all of them are.
2007-11-26 16:48:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋