 Re: gitmo Quote: |
Originally Posted by mandiejo 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. | that's precisely why the affirmative has the advantage on this side, because giving them their right to due process, while not required and certainly not deserved (seeing as it's a civil liberty, not human, applying to citizens only) is said to up our soft power and hegemony. everyone loves that nye 99 card. but in negation, would we not be violating internat.'l law by giving them status that under the geneva convention they don't qualify for? and, in addition, would we not have to change their status in order to ensure said due process? | Our founding fathers believed that the rights that they included in our Constitution and Bill of Rights were human rights. I think that this "unlawful combatant" thing is an underhanded word game that the Bush administration is playing. Most of the people in Gitmo, according to the government, were picked up in combat in Afganistan. They were fighting against the US. If this is a war on terror, then these people sound like POW's to me. Citizens that are imprisoned there, who were arrested by their countries but were not in active combat, should be given trials by a jury of their peers. Military tribunals are not for civilians. |