Quote:
|
Originally Posted by onetime2
In terms of the detainees at Gitmo, it's an unfortunate legal chasm right now. I am sure there are some being held that are innocent and I'm sure there are some who are guilty as hell who will be released (as some who have been released have already gone back to leading terror cells). The simple fact is that there is no clear precedent for how enemy combatants without allegiance to a "state" should be treated. Do they fall under the Geneva Conventions? Do they have the same rights guaranteed to American citizens? Are they saboteurs? Are they spies? In some respects those being held could fall into any one or all of the above categories.
Through legal challenges and time the process will be defined. It's distressing that things can't move more quickly but the stakes are extremely high and we certainly can not take short cuts in releasing people who may turn out to be the next Bin Laden.
|
I understand this to be rather off topic, but I felt the need to address this.
The situation with the type of prisoners we have in Gitmo may indeed need to be dealt with based on a different view of rights than that afforded by the Geneva Convention (my personal opinion is that the same principles of the Geneva Convention should apply), but it is an entirely incorrect position to treat those prisoners in ways that specifically go against the Geneva Convention _before_ it has been determiined that that is the correct method of treating those prisoners. In other words - yes, it is a gray area. The administration has choosen the morally bankrupt path of blackness (disregard for human rights) as they are clearly under the impression that the white (Geneva Convention mandate) does not apply. To take this position is reprehensible.
Further, the belief that it is ok to hold hundreds of innocent people prisoner for almost 3 years due to there possibly being a handful of guilty in their midst is equally reprehensible.