Guantanamo Bay - Detainees have their rights strengthened....... Good or bad?
By James72
@James72 (26790)
Australia
June 13, 2008 12:47am CST
This is big news at the moment.... And Mr Bush certainly isn't happy about it! If I have the correct information; it was voted 5 to 4 that detainees will be granted the rights to non-military court hearings regarding their imprisonment. One detainee accused of being Bin Laden's driver has already filed for consideration under these rights.
Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Some interesting statistics I heard this morning stated the following:
- Current number of detainees at Guantanamo - 270
- Current number of these suspected of being terrorists - 200
- Number of detainees released since 2002 - 500
- Number of detainees released that are known to have returned to fight against the US - 30
From my perspective I have a number of comments regarding all of this. Firstly; why SHOULDN'T these detainees be granted the same rights as any one else? Sure, holding someone without charge for a limited period is understandable; but some of these people have been detained for up to 5 years without any charges being laid!
Secondly, whatever happened to "all men being created equal"?? If a foreign country were to do the same thing with an American citizen there would be hell to pay!
Lastly, the statistics I shared above are interesting. So 200 of the current detainees are suspected of terrorism? So what are the other 70 there for then?
There are 30 known re-offenders out of the released 500 to date..... This represents around 6%. This is very few when you think about it. What does this mean for the other 470 then? Were they really guilty in the first place? If these people were all as fanatical as they are made out to be then surely a much higher number than 30 would have returned to fight yes?
As far as I am concerned; EVERY person regardless of what they are accused of, deserves a fair and and as least biased hearing as is possible. Comments are being made that "these rights weren't given to the Nazi's either; so why now?". Well for one, this ain't the 1940's! Provide all people a fair trial; if found guilty, punish them to the full extent of the law. But it HAS to be fair and as unbiased as is possible.
What do you all think?
2 people like this
5 responses
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
13 Jun 08
The difference is in whether or not the detainees are criminals or prisoners of war. These 2 categories are entitled to vastly different rights.
BTW: Under the Genva convention combatants not in uniform and not fighting under the flag of any nation are defined as 'rabble' and may be ordered shot on sight or when captured. Only a corporal or higher is needed to give the order. Yes, I have studied the Genva convention. Knowing it use to be part of my job, a long time ago.
4 people like this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
13 Jun 08
OOPS... did not answer your question.
I think it is bad these war criminal fanatics have been extended the rights of accused Americans. Please, note that the USA has realeased numerous of these people under the current system. The USA is not simply locking people up forever.
Giving the GITMO prisoners additional rights is only making the war on terror more difficult to fight.
4 people like this
@James72 (26790)
• Australia
15 Jun 08
I do though wonder if the roles were reversed and it were Americans in a Middle Eastern facility under the same circumstances; how would people react? Fair enough I guess that American rights should not be extended as they are NOT Americans; but a right to as free and as fair a hearing as possible using as unbiased forums as is possible to do so I believe is everyone's right. Thanks for responding.
1 person likes this
@James72 (26790)
• Australia
15 Jun 08
I am most certainly aware of this; and have unfortunately seen some of the videos released by these maniacs concerning the same. I am not in any way condoning any of these actions by Al Qaeda or anybody; nor am I stating that they should not be punished severely for their actions when caught. My area of interest or concern I guess is in relation to the negative reactions by many when it is voted 5 to 4 that prisoners here will now have access to a wider court system.
McVeigh is an interesting example. He was what you would call a terrorist yes? He was caught, charged and faced courts with all rights to legal council granted. He was found guilty and executed. Regardless of my stance on capital punishment; the man was granted a fair hearing in had all options available to him in that sense. Yes he was an American and this was his right; and yes I agree that American law should not necessarily extend to non-Americans; but his is an example of due course without any bias. All I would like to say is that I feel having access to other judicial mediums may increase not only expediency; but may also ensure a more solid and unbiased verdict. If they are found guilty; nail them; pure and simple!
1 person likes this
@Angel3yes (455)
• United States
14 Jun 08
I think that the detainees should be granted a right to a trial because the Guantanamo Bay center is actually an American run embassay that is just based in a foriegn country. Are we just making excuses to try to take away basic civil rights? I think we should put a stop to the injustices before they just begin to spread and we become just as bad as the third world communist countries. They wanted to keep these detainees indefinately without granting them a trial at all. Supposadly all men are granted a right to a trial and we are violating these rights, whether they are technically on American soil or not, they are in an American run prison.
3 people like this
@James72 (26790)
• Australia
15 Jun 08
Fair enough. In Australia for example; we have detention centres. These centres are for illegal immigrants that enter the country without the proper permissions to do so. Yes they are kept confined; yes it is pretty much a prison..... BUT it is clear from day one why they have been incarcerated. Some may spend years in detention; and most are actually not granted refugee status. But their reason for detainment is pretty clear. I agree that there needs to be a tougher stance in instances such as this; though the emphasis HAS to be on fairness overall when it comes time to face charges that are eventually put forward. In my opinion, having the right to wider court options is a fairer scenario. If they are guilty then they will generally be found so. Thanks for responding.
2 people like this
@gewcew23 (8007)
• United States
13 Jun 08
Foreigners are not protected by the Constitution. So yes all Americans are created equally. Even if we use international law these detainees are illegal combatant and still do not have any right. We should not base American law on international law anyway. If these detainees had just been executed like George Washington did(A founding father) we would have had no issues. Why treat these terrorist any better than the Nazi's so I do not see what your point is about this is not 1940's. What is the difference? If non-combatants are captured of there they are beheaded, so our treatment in my view is pretty fair.
@James72 (26790)
• Australia
15 Jun 08
What is the difference? I would like to think that given the events of the past warring nations would always act as fairly as possible in all situations. I agree with your point regarding American Law NOT being extended internationally; my point is in regards to base fundamental rights of any individual to an unbiased and fair process. An of course this is a far cry from beheading! My focus was on the statistics provided; even if this WERE an option today as it was back then; a majority of these people have not been charged with anything? National security is of utmost priority... agreed. Erring on the side of caution is a smart move.... agreed. I am just no 100% convinced that this is the most unbiased or fairest methodology is all. Thanks for responding.
2 people like this
@MntlWard (878)
• United States
14 Jun 08
I'm in agreement with you. Everyone should get a fair trial.
And before any other posters reply with something like "They're terrorists, so they don't deserve a trial.":
If it could be proven that they're all terrorists, they'd all have been convicted in the tribunals by now.
2 people like this
@James72 (26790)
• Australia
15 Jun 08
Like I said in my response to the last contributor; I DO appreciate that due process takes time; and that compiling evidence and putting together a case would be a laborious process..... It is your second paragraph statement that is the one that troubles me. Surely EVERYBODY deserves a fair trial? Thanks for responding.
2 people like this
@clrumfelt (5597)
• Tennessee Ridge, Tennessee
13 Jun 08
"If a foreign country were to do the same thing with an American citizen there would be hell to pay!"
Not exactly true. Journalists, military detainees, missionaries and a host of other Americans
have been detained in other countries by terrorists, and mercilessly tortured and murdered.
It's true that the USA honors the value of human rights more than those countries that have
produced these terrorists, and we much adhere to our values when dealing with the rest of the
world, even if it is hard, but there should be a system that sends them through the judicial
process immediately instead of detaining them for five years. The five year detainment makes
them seem like victime and will likely elicit a sympathy factor which would not come into play
had they been given speedy trials.
3 people like this
@James72 (26790)
• Australia
15 Jun 08
OK. Yes I agree that journalists, military personnel etc have also been detained by other countries; but certainly not on such a grand scale. Long detainments versus speedy trials is a valid point. I appreciate the time frames of due process; but they should still at least be charged with something while awaiting your time in court; and at least move to be expedient in this regard.
2 people like this
