Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mandiejo first, it's because under international law they do not qualify for the POW status that would be required to ensure their due process rights. |
So what do they qualify as then?
Kidnap victims?
I find it interesting how we refer to the "RIGHT of due process", but then we talk casually of denying it to the gitmo prisoners.
Precisely how long can we hold these prisoners without charging them?
Indefinitely?
Are we, as a people, okay with that?
And where is the reason in denying them the right to due process.
I can understand HOW we can legally and logistically due it, but WHY are we doing it?
Wouldn't there come a stage where we have all the information we can get from a prisoner, and then we should just charge him and send him off to jail as part of the logical progression?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mandiejo second, there is absolutely no h.r. abuse at gitmo, i have cards for it in my crate. |
HR abuse is in the eye of the beholder.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060216/.../un_guantanamo
"U.N. Report Equates Gitmo to Torture"
The very title says it all...
And quite frankly, I don't know about you, but I feel a little unwilling to trust an administration which has BLATANTLY REFUSED to simply sign a piece of legislation which says that the U.S. doesn't torture...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mandiejo what you have to realize is that it would be the biggest possible waste of the government, court system, and legal official's times to go through the process of changing their status, and then giving due process to over 600 people because they were picked up on the battlefield as enemy combatants firing at american soldiers so taking them through the court system would be an absolute waste because there's no way they could prove themselves innocent! |
Giving them due process would be "the biggest possible waste" of time???
Tell me.
What's the alternative?
Do we just hold them in jail indefinitely?
Without a trial?
What is the alternative to giving them "due process"???
What ARE we going to do instead of granting them "due process"?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mandiejo they were caught in the act and that shows the lack of need to give them the chance to show otherwise. |
I just don't get that line of reasoning AT ALL.
They were caught in the act. Speaks to guilt, right?
How the heck does being guilty suddenly make somebody less worthy of due process?
And on another level, I just can't help but think that we, as a nation, pray that these same standards that we apply to other people is not some day used against the U.S. That some country that we have a military action against doesn't find themselves in custody of a few hundred U.S. soldiers, and that country decides they don't qualify for "due process"....