Thread: gitmo
View Single Post
Old 02-26-2006, 12:12 PM   #6 (permalink)
prescott911
Council Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Rome, Italy
Posts: 1,214
Points: 6,193, Level: 51
Points: 6,193, Level: 51 Points: 6,193, Level: 51 Points: 6,193, Level: 51
Level up: 22%, 157 Points needed
Level up: 22% Level up: 22% Level up: 22%
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
Send a message via ICQ to prescott911 Send a message via AIM to prescott911 Send a message via MSN to prescott911
prescott911 is offline
Reply With Quote
Re: gitmo
Quote:
Originally Posted by hevusa
Quote:
Originally Posted by mandiejo
once again, debate related. sorta. gitmo, short for guantanamo bay, was just on c-span, where the nat.'l security advisor stephen hadley said that most people wish there weren't any gitmo's, but that they are in fact necessary to the war on terror. if we have any policy debaters on here whatsoever, what's your stance on granting POW status under the resolution?

I don't see how stripping people of their right to a trial as being necessary to the war on terror. I would argue that it creates more fuel for the enemy and may even create more enemies overall.
Once they were put on trial and most likely sentenced to death or life in prison, people would complain that they didn't have fair trials. They wouldnt be tried in the civilian court system. They would be tried in a military court under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice).
-- San Fernando Valley's where it's at