[nsf003]

A report on guantamo bay cuba where some "terrorists" are being held. The report said that the prisoners were complaining about their civil rights being denied, mainly right to an attorney. Then the reporter cut to some general that said that national security is more important. :fire: Sounds like a way to condition people about taking away rights, all for "national security". I was hoping you guys were wrong about this country slowly becoming a police state.


nsf003

ps, I am not in any way defending the actions of the terrorists

[Mark Tyson]

Yes it's troubling, but it's a little more complicated than that. These guys were captured on a foreign battlefield and are citizens of foreign countries, so it's not clear exaclty what American civil rights apply to them. By all accounts they are not being tortured and are being allowed to practice their religion(to our detriment with the recent spy scandals). Unless they were attacking civilians, they're not really terrorists per se though they are aligned with UBL's movement.

If we were to turn them over to their countries of citizenship, I think most of them they would be in for some really rough treatment.

As for liberty vs. security, obviously that's the big debate these days. We ought to err on the side of liberty because that's what makes us different from the enemy. However, I happen to think we can figure out a way to have both liberty and security.

http://pic2.picturetrail.com/VOL7/1543046/2949508/37954939.jpg

[MoreTEN]

Guantamo bay is not the way of getting rid of terrorism, it will only make it worse.

This is an classic example of USA stepping on human rights, and your wonder why people speak out?

This is just on of many human rights the USA break on a daily basis.

[Standing Wolf]

Sounds like a way to condition people about taking away rights, all for "national security".

This is an classic example of USA stepping on human rights, and your wonder why people speak out?

They're not U.S. citizens with U.S. civil rights. They're enemy combatants, and are being treated far more humanely than enemy combatants in any previous wars.

[Jeff Timm]

MoreTen said, Guantamo bay is not the way of getting rid of terrorism, it will only make it worse.

The problem is, the Law of Land Warfare is very clear, and too many people know NOTHING about it. If a local population rises EN MASS to resist an invasion they are entitled to the same rights as combatants..

The US cannot treat the prisoners as criminals, they must treat them as combatants, BUT, the prisoners have no authority that they recognize, nor does any authority recognize them! There is no mechanism by which they can be repatriated to an authority which cannot surrender, because it does not exist.

Any authority wishing to take responsibility for said prisoners please indicate by formally declaring war on the US of A.

Geoff
Who doesn't figure anybody is that dumb.

[LoneStranger]

I'll play!!

Out in the big world you will find that no matter what Norwegian Law might say on a subject if you are in another country that countries Laws will be applied to you.
So the American Constitution does not apply outside of our political boundaries.
Guantanamo is not inside U.S.A. political boundaries. This means that American Constitution does not apply.

I imagine we could follow the recent example of Castro, since it could be argued they are in Cuba, and just arbitrarily execute them like Castro recently did to a number of dissidents in his country.:rolleyes:

Biggest Human-rights offense at Gitmo is that people who have a serious dislike for U.S.A. can't get information to be used in propaganda attacks against U.S.A. and it really has their panties in a bunch. :neener: