Go to Janes Opinion
- Add a comment
- Go to Guantanamo Condemned
Blanche01, at the very least,
proper trials would help our credibility. I agree with you there. I will say once again that I'm all for a proper trial; I've never been against that. But it would seem that the people who are so very concerned about the civil rights of these alleged terrorists at Gitmo have little (verbalized) concern for the victims of these terrorists. It's all about civil rights for the "freedom fighters." I've got a problem with that mentality. Of course, that said, I'm generalizing, which regularly gets me into trouble. It's a complex issue for which there are no easy answers.
Why bring Christ into this discussion? I'm curious. God is just, and will bring justice to the just and the unjust. I believe we all will have to give an accounting for our actions to God someday.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on June 12, 2006 at 6:55 PM
| link to this | reply
JanesOpinion, Blogflogger has a point, legal precedent requires
that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us, answer to our own higher moral code. A trial is necessary to ensure that justice is done, rather than condemn the countries who are rightly condemning our lack of proper procedure, why not admit we have no jurisdiction and do the right thing with a trial. If the evidence supports their guilt, then deal with them accordingly. Even Christ would argue that, I'm sure.
posted by
Blanche.
on June 12, 2006 at 5:22 PM
| link to this | reply
uh, blogflogger, did I say I was against a fair trial?
Re-read my post, and you'll see that I'm for a fair and just trial for them.
As has happened, we've let some of them go and they've returned to battle -- against Iraq, against the Coalition. So much for innocence!
Thanks for your comments.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on June 12, 2006 at 5:19 PM
| link to this | reply
Hi Shawn,
Yeah, you're right. A lot of presumably innocent civilians have died thanks to our smart bombs. War is messy, dirty, nasty and frankly awful.
Thanks for stopping by!
posted by
JanesOpinion
on June 12, 2006 at 5:18 PM
| link to this | reply
More than 60 of the GITMO prisoners are juveniles. As for the rest?
How do we know what they are guilty of? They've never been charged, nor allowed to launch a defense. In my mind that means their guilt or innocence is in question. Further, they are kept at GITMO so the military can avoid the necessity of abiding by the laws of the United States. If they're guilty, why can't we incarcerate them in the US and take them to trial? If they are ALL guilty, and there is no need to provide them with a trial, why have hundreds been turned loose following incarceration?
posted by
blogflogger
on June 12, 2006 at 11:12 AM
| link to this | reply
Open-minded Makes It More Appealing
You seem to have a deeper understand of what is going on here. Of course we can't mistreat the Guatanamo Bay prisoners and go against international law regarding torture. Even if most of them are guilty of heinous crimes, torturing them would be hypocritical. Actions speak louder than words, and over the long term going by the book will pay off.
You forgot to mention the thousands of Iraqi civilians killed by our bombs...
Thank you for your thought-provoking work!
--Shawn, "Tall and Skinny Politico"
posted by
TallAndSkinnyPoet
on June 11, 2006 at 4:36 PM
| link to this | reply
AaronB, thanks for those astute comments.
I wonder if any of the AI folk or other human rights people have been victimized by terrorism. It would seem that the civil rights of the terrorists are more important than civil rights of sane and civil folk. Thanks for commenting!
posted by
JanesOpinion
on June 11, 2006 at 3:41 PM
| link to this | reply
We did release some prisoners from Gitmo
Several dozen of the detainees considered the least of a threat were released. And then out of the least dangerous ones, at least 15% were killed or captured fighting against the US within months. And people say the prisoners there were just victims of "wrong place, wrong time."
The absurd double-standard "human rights" groups hold America to would be laughable in a sane world. In the Arab world, a simple rumor that a given person is a "collaborator with Israel" results in that person vanishing off the face of the Earth.
posted by
AaronB
on June 11, 2006 at 2:45 PM
| link to this | reply
R_I, I fear that if they're turned over to the UN, they'll just be released
as "freedom fighter." That term pretty much makes anything they do legitimate.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on June 11, 2006 at 1:51 PM
| link to this | reply
has the U.N. condemned Gitmo yet? If not, its likely just a matter of time
give them to the U.N. in the name of "humanity", a word they like to throw around a lot....
posted by
Rumor
on June 11, 2006 at 1:39 PM
| link to this | reply