Guantanamo Bay

[dodge83]

How many of the people in Guantanamo have been convicted in a proper trial? Innocent until proven guilty. And no, just because they were arrested, doesn't prove that they are guilty.

Bring them before the world, put them on trial and then shoot them if they are convicted.

There are actual innocent people in there, having horrible stuff done to them.

i aggree with you they should go on trial in a war crimes court just like the Israeli comanders should civilians in both situatuions died.
Its just that the Guantanamo prisoners probally did not get the full chance to kill people in their attempts (the ones that are quilty)

[Nemo]

The prisoners in Guantanamo are all immigrants who have associated with or demonstrated an affinity with terrorism;

I don't know where you got the "all immigrant" from. Many of the detainees were arrested abroad.

[nfidel2k]

Sorry, I guess aliens would have been a better word. Non-US citizens.

[tloblaw]

Any cop will tell you it isn't hard to plant evidence. To argue that Gitmo serves a positive role is contradictory to human nature. If I am the leader of a nation, or a high ranking official in a state, a place like Gitmo gives me freedom to jail anyone I feel threatening to my well being. Regardless of it's role in the world today, it is NOT providing any fear to terrorists, it is not stopping terrorism, and I would argue the small percentage of prevention it may grant is not worth the sacrifice of human rights. A place like Gitmo only works with a proper justice system set up to give these guys trial in an unbiased environment. It has to be completely open to media, and have all information shared with the people. This is the ONLY way a place like this can work without angering the majority of the human race.

[nfidel2k]

Not true. You assume that the purpose of incarcerating the people in Guantanamo is to rehabilitate them or make them serve some sort of punishment for their crime.

[tloblaw]

No, I assume, in a free world, and the leaders of the free world, that a place like Gitmo is going to be about justice and incarcerating people who are found guilty for crimes against humanity, or in the least, the nation in question. So, reality check, if that is not the purpose for Gitmo, then the leaders of the free world are using it simply to detain people suspected of terrorist activities? By that logic, Nelson Mandella should be in there, because it was only just last year the guy was taken of the terrorist watch list.

There is a fine line between security and freedom. It's all fine and well if you take security over freedom, but not if you are the leaders of the free world. It just doesn't make any sense.

[nfidel2k]

Once again, you assume it's about incarceration for a crime. Guantanamo (the prison, not the base) was originally set up as a human rights violation to learn more about the terrorist networks that are attacking the free world. It had nothing to do with serving punishment for a crime committed. While it still serves a purpose in trying to gather information about terrorist networks and their activities, it has lost its ability to violate human rights to gain that information due to public attention (a very good thing).

However, the majority of the detainees are actually people who either lived in the US or tried to obtain entry into the US and have known ties to terrorism. These are people who are in the process of being deported, and as stated in an earlier post, for most of them even their country of origin won't claim them or take them back. Which leaves them as political prisoners in Guantanamo.

[ravenspo]

You guys are confusing war criminals terrorist types and the average civilian purse snatcher. There is no comparison. The people in Gitmo *need* to be there because they are waging a war against the United States. (ie: planning to kill American troops and/or civilians.) While detestable to the intelligent civilized people like us, places like Gitmo need to exist.

Absolutely the people in Gitmo should NOT be given the same rights or trials as a civilian criminal. They also should not be given the same rights as an American citizen. If you want American rights - become an American. They want to destroy America. Why would we help the enemy?

Before you type anything - the answer to that question is not "because of human rights". We cannot bestow on them something they don't believe in.

[Nemo]

The people in Gitmo *need* to be there because they are waging a war against the United States. (ie: planning to kill American troops and/or civilians.) While detestable to the intelligent civilized people like us, places like Gitmo need to exist.

Those are the same arguments a totalitarian government would use.

Absolutely the people in Gitmo should NOT be given the same rights or trials as a civilian criminal. They also should not be given the same rights as an American citizen. If you want American rights - become an American. They want to destroy America. Why would we help the enemy?

Before you type anything - the answer to that question is not "because of human rights". We cannot bestow on them something they don't believe in.

Doesn't the American constitution say that all men are created equal? Isn't that what America is based on? Isn't that what it means to be American? That you are not a barbarian? That you are a civilised nation? If so, then by your own rules, you are bound to be humane with these people and give them rights.

That is what is called morality. The difference between right and wrong. The reason human rights was ever conceived, the reason slavery is abolished, the reason why you are not supposed to shoot an unarmed man. Some might say it's a weakness. I personally consider it a strength. That is what makes you different from the terrorists.

Or it would, if you abided by it, which you are currently not. You might sleep with a clear conscience, but a spotless conscience is not a correct measurement of right and wrong. I think it was Himmler who said, "my conscience is clear".

You all need to sit down and read Harry Potter. Pay particular attention to Dumbledore. You might end up learning things that school children could tell you.

[UNLiMiTED]

Great post Nemo!

[nfidel2k]

Bingo. It's the same idea in the movie "The Siege", with Denzel Washington. What most people don't realize is that when you deny anyone, even the terrorists, the rights that are determined to belong to every person, the terrorists win. In a war of ideology, you don't have to kill your opponent to win, only change their ideology.

[tloblaw]

And another tidbit to these wonderful posts, the reason you have to provide trial to these people is because some of them MAY be innocent. Regardless of whether or not you believe or can understand the need for a place like Gitmo, the fact will always remain that you MUST give fair justice to everyone. They need to be proven guilty, and not assumed guilty.

Many places in the world people are forced against their will. Imagine a gun to your childs head, and you having the choice of saving their life by ending another. A terrible thing to think about, but what would you pick? A strong person with strong faith may trust God with the hands of your child, but for the most part, I doubt a single one of us could sit and watch their child be killed. So you are then tied with terrorists and possibly thrown into Gitmo. It's hard to pass judgement in every situation, and you can not tell me you would condem a man or woman for making either choice. On the one hand you would be a loving parent, in the other you may be considered a martyr.

[WolfDGrey]

Doesn't the American constitution say that all men are created equal?

Why you think it says "are created equal" and not "they are equal"?

[nfidel2k]

And another tidbit to these wonderful posts, the reason you have to provide trial to these people is because some of them MAY be innocent. Regardless of whether or not you believe or can understand the need for a place like Gitmo, the fact will always remain that you MUST give fair justice to everyone. They need to be proven guilty, and not assumed guilty.

Once again, you miss the point. The majority aren't being held for crimes and punished, they are being DEPORTED and no one will take them. The few that are in there for crimes have had trial or are awaiting it. The detainees that are awaiting deportation have been identified as associating with known terrorist organisations, or supporting them. The popular idea on TV or in the movies that an officer of the law simply has to say "terrorist" and off you go to Gitmo is not true, it is a comic exaggeration to scare people. To my knowledge only one person has been improperly detained at Gitmo, and that problem was rectified. And the detainees have the right to Habeus Corpus, so unlawful detention isn't the issue.

The issue was always about torture and improper treatment of detainees. No one is going out and grabbing people to send them off to Gitmo to serve punishment for crimes that they didn't stand trial for. But groups like the ACLU love to exaggerate the issue to make it seem more important when it doesn't need it.

[Daivler]

Have you guys heard about one of Pennsylvanias representatives wanting to take the detainees?
Some plan to create more jobs by building a high/max security prison in the region of, (I wanna say) Connorsville, but I can't remember where my GF said it was. It's West-PA iirc.