and tried in our courts?
2007-12-04 07:16:29 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The reasons are simple: the Bush was determined to have a degree of power that is not permitted under the US Cosntitution--and this was supported by the right wing political leadership. There overall goal is clear: to undermine the Constitution and bring America a step closer to the point where they could establish a dictatorship.
Specifics:
>The Constitution does no tpermit torture or denial of habeaus corpus and due process.
>In addition, any use of torture cannot be defended, since it is well known that torture is ineffective--and that LEGAL means of interrogation that do not rely on torture are mre effective. This is important--since it proves that "protecting the nation" iis NOT the motive for the existance of Gitmo.
Finally, it is also clear that the detainees are, for the most part, innocent victims--people seized and held without cause,. If that were not the case, their cases would have been dealt with by now--and whould have HAD be addressed if they were within US jurisdiction.
The bottom line--Gitmo exists for te specific purpose of being what it is: a oncentration camp. Its larger purpsoe is to set a precedant tha tcan eventually be used against American citizens who are dissenters from the right -wing ideology and campaign to strip Americans of their rights and liberties.
2007-12-04 07:28:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
On US soil, they would have had basic human rights as granted by the US consitution. They would have had access to legal counsel and a guarantee of due process. By calling them "enemy combatants" instead of prisoners of war", we were also able to skirt various rights guaranteed to prisoners of war by the Geneva Convention. So the real question is: Why did the government want to deny these people due process? Why was it important for the government to keep these people locked up for years at a time without charging them with anything? I mean, heck, why didn't we just shoot them and bury them? All they're doing over in Guantanamo is wasting my tax money...
2007-12-04 07:25:11 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
each thing I have ever examine (except basically human beings's evaluations) concurs such as your roommate. lack of life-penalty circumstances are absurdly expensive; protecting a prisoner "in basic terms" expenditures about as a lot as having a infant in college - so except the prisoner is going to stay to be a number of hundred years previous, feeding them in detention center is a real good purchase compared to executing them. slightly off topic - there have also been statistical study that educate always that once states undertake the shortcoming of life penalty, their homicide rates bypass up at a a lot swifter cost than neighboring states that do not have the shortcoming of life penalty.
2016-10-25 10:56:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They were not USA citizens and were not entitled to that right, if you call that a right. The USA already has an overcrowding issue in their prison system. This would make a bad situation worse. Prison guards are not trained to handle terrorists, just the run of the mill murderers, rapists and thieves. Just a few of the many reasons.
2007-12-04 07:46:00 · answer #4 · answered by grandma 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Because we do not allow torture on American soil. Actually, we don't legally allow it at Gitmo either, but with Bush's limited intelligence Cheney convinced him it would be OK to torture people there. Besides, they can get their jollies off while the matter crawls through the court system.
2007-12-04 07:27:32 · answer #5 · answered by joker_32605 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
It keeps them out of the US legal system. The military can hold them indefinitely without having to charge them for a crime. The reasoning behind this is to gather intelligence about terrorist networks, remove leaders from their networks, and prevent jihadists from becoming martyrs.
If they're brought to the US, they have to be tried and convicted of a crime, or set free. Its quite the ideological pickle.
2007-12-04 07:21:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Technically Guantanamo bay does not lay on US soil, therefore the rules with regards to treatment and detention of a prisoner do not apply.
2007-12-04 07:20:58 · answer #7 · answered by smedrik 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Because US courts don't have jurisdiction at Gitmo. The prisoners are subject to military tribunal.
2007-12-04 08:46:42 · answer #8 · answered by mjmayer188 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A fair trial?
Are you kidding?
Because there's no evidence against most of them.
Keeping them at Guantanamo makes the administration think they can sustain their lies that we aren't breaking the law.
The reason they GIVE for not trying them is that they'd have to give away secrets.
But then, not having ever known any of them to tell the truth, I'm not buying.
2007-12-04 11:22:19 · answer #9 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Cuba will have a problem attacking the US. We could just release thousands of terrorists into Cuba if they tried anything...
2007-12-04 07:26:10 · answer #10 · answered by The Teller 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋