how can we imprison people without evidence?

[moose]

just read this off of google news and it amazed me --

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7217367

-

if we don't have evidence to support a trial then how can we hold them?

can someone explain this to me?

[Gunslinger]

ummmm hold a terrorist scumbag......or release one back in the wild to re-join the fight against us.

Yea Real tough choice.  Of course I beleive US Citizens would be protected by the constitution but these guys are not us citizens and have no more rights than a pack of dogs.

[Hooligan]

If I am not mistaken, these guys were picked up in either Afghanastan or Iraq.  They were not wearing military uniforms so under the Geneva convention they can be shot.  

Hooligan

[mosca]

This isn't the first time an administration has gone to extremes violating the constitution and abusing citizens illegally to support a questionable overseas military expedition. During WW1, Wilson claimed to be acting on behalf of God. The publishers of German language newspapers were imprisoned. A US congressman was imprisoned for speaking out against the administration. A traveling salesman was murdered on suspicion of spreading influenza as part of a biological warfare plot by the Central powers.

There are many chilling parallels between that era and ours today. The only thing that gives me reassurance is that we survived that time, and that implies that we will survive this time as well.


Tom

[Chairboy]

I like the idea that this is actually a cover for a new power source that harnesses electricity from the spinning graves of our founding fathers.

[Yeager]

have you hugged a terrorist today?

[Nashwan]

Of course I beleive US Citizens would be protected by the constitution

Jose Padilla is still in custody, still hasn't been charged with a crime, and is starting again at the lowest rung of the court system after the supreme court didn't order his release on technical grounds.

He's been in custody for over 2.5 years, most of it in military custody without access to a lawyer.

He's a US citizen, arrested in the US.

[Nashwan]

If I am not mistaken, these guys were picked up in either Afghanastan or Iraq. They were not wearing military uniforms so under the Geneva convention they can be shot.

No, if they were not wearing uniforms they are not protected by the Geneva Convention on the treeatment of prisoners of war, unless they qualify under other criteria.  Note that if they took up arms before the territory they were in was occupied (ie, they went out to fight as the "enemy" reached their area) they do not have to wear uniforms to qualify as a POW.

If they are not entitled to prisoner of war status, they are protected by the fourth Geneva Convention, relative to treatment of civilians in wartime.

Under the fourth convention, they cannot be executed if they were under 18 at the time they committed an offence.

They must be granted all the rights accord to civilians as soon as the security state permits. Given that the detainees in Gitmo are securely locked up, they are entitled to all the protections of the Fourth geneva Conventions. They are entitled to a fair trial, can only be executed after a fair trial, and only if the acts they committed were punishable by the death sentence in Afghanistan (which is more than likely).

[Otto]

I believe in equality for all.  You should treat your enemy the way they treat you.  So I say.....

"Cut their heads off......"  

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by mosca
This isn't the first time an administration has gone to extremes violating the constitution and abusing citizens illegally to support a questionable overseas military expedition. During WW1, Wilson claimed to be acting on behalf of God. The publishers of German language newspapers were imprisoned. A US congressman was imprisoned for speaking out against the administration. A traveling salesman was murdered on suspicion of spreading influenza as part of a biological warfare plot by the Central powers.

There are many chilling parallels between that era and ours today. The only thing that gives me reassurance is that we survived that time, and that implies that we will survive this time as well.


Tom

Those are fine examples BUT most of these guys are not Citizens.  They are not even POWs, they are terrorists.  They should not be afforeded the same rights and liberties that they were caught fighting against.

In cases were US citizens are wrongfully imprisoned or are not afforded their rights that is wrong IMHO.  The courts have failed them if their apeals are not heard.

It's been proven though that release of these war criminals results in them going right back into the fight.

[spitfiremkv]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
ummmm hold a terrorist scumbag......or release one back in the wild to re-join the fight against us.

Yea Real tough choice.  Of course I beleive US Citizens would be protected by the constitution but these guys are not us citizens and have no more rights than a pack of dogs.

so you mean to say foreigners have no rights?

or just that terrorists have no rights?

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by spitfiremkv
so you mean to say foreigners have no rights?

or just that terrorists have no rights?

most of the time they are the same, foreigners and terrorists but not allways.  BUT, to say they have NO rights is extreme.  These terrorists were captured (and I'm speaking in general as in most of them) on a battlefield fighing US forces and not representing any particular country......they are criminals.  Now in most cases they WOULD have some judicial rights but seeing as they are not US citizens they should NOT be afforded OUR rights.  In most cases they are reciving far better treatment then if they were captured by other countrys.  

to say they have NO rights is dumb.....to say they should be afforded the same rights as a US citizen is extreme.

[JB88]

Originally posted by Chairboy
I like the idea that this is actually a cover for a new power source that harnesses electricity from the spinning graves of our founding fathers.

brilliant!

[FT_Animal]

The word "Suspected" does not carry the weight to justify this. Welcome to the mentaility of Bushism.

A lot of these people are innocent and were rounded up like wild horses from the streets. We are not sure about some of them. So since we aren't sure, lock them up for life to be safe.

We have no one to blame but ourselves, we put this admin in place, not once, but twice now, that makes us twice as stupid.

2 cents

Originally posted by Gunslinger
ummmm hold a terrorist scumbag......or release one back in the wild to re-join the fight against us.

Yea Real tough choice.  Of course I beleive US Citizens would be protected by the constitution but these guys are not us citizens and have no more rights than a pack of dogs.

[patrone]

Dont you think you need to prove to the public that a person is a terrorist before you can treat him like one?

IIRC there where kids in Gitmo, 13-14 years old.

If they where so sure about their proofs, why have they released so many?, People spent over 2 years in Gitmo without trail, then suddenly released without anything?

This really puzzles me. If they where terrorists, why where they not punished further?

Why do they not dare to bring them to court, why will they not dare to give information about Saddam peoples trails, not admitting Journalists at the trails?
What is so secret? What danger could this bring?
Are USA affraid of the truth?

No, it is not bashing, its questions. It would be nice if someone could answer them.

Crabofix
BOOORK