?

Log in

philobate

new topic

« previous entry | next entry »
May. 26th, 2005 | 06:29 pm
posted by: sometimeafter in philobate

okay, y'all. i've got a new topic idea. what does everyone think of guantanamo (sp?) bay? for anyone who doesn't know, we're keeping people we think might be terrorists there. it's in cuba. kinda interesting. the reason it's there is because it's illegal in the united states, keeping supposed terrorists like that.

entry | Leave a comment | Share

Comments {4}

sayonara_de

[[unnamed]]

from: sayonara_de
date: May. 26th, 2005 11:52 pm (UTC)
entry

Really? It's a United States holding?

RSVP | Thread

Emily

[[unnamed]]

from: sometimeafter
date: May. 30th, 2005 11:20 pm (UTC)
entry

um, yup. i guess. i don't know too much about it.

RSVP | Parent | Thread

[[unnamed]]

from: indirectlyyes
date: Jun. 29th, 2005 08:56 pm (UTC)
entry

Officially, they are "enemy combatants", i.e., not uniform soldiers who would be responsible to a state (and thus eligible for Geneva convention treatment of P.O.W.s) and not "criminals" who would be afforded the rights of U.S. criminal procedures. You can say they are only thought to be terrorists, but they were, in fact, captured in military engagements with American troops. They were fighting us or discovered making plans to fight us.

The concern, of course, is the gray area of not being official soldiers who identify themselves in the arena of combat, nor criminals and subject to civil authorities. So, what is the military doing with them? And how do we know? It's a good question, since a couple are American citizens (though that doesn't really matter, you can still be an enemy combatant) and we only have the reports from the military tribunals themselves. There is the stated policy of not using torture, of course. However, detention for those captured in times of war is indefinite -- i.e., until the war is over, which means something like the enemy is incapable of further attack. But: when will the "war on terrorism" be over? When will al queada be incapable of further attack?

RSVP | Thread

1ad_astra1

[[unnamed]]

from: 1ad_astra1
date: Jun. 4th, 2006 11:07 pm (UTC)
entry

Holding a person on soil foreign to your own to avoid certain legalities smells fishy to me. if we are to be a just society it would be just to apply the innocent until proven guilty prospect that we apply to our citezens, we(our government) does after all remove these suspects from their soil to insure personal safety.. the same reason we put US citezens behind bars. I would be more secure mentaly to know that my own government does not utilize its loop holes to an extreme.

Doing so, i would theorize that the true terrorists that we wish to demolish would have less to recruit people with therefore less to demolish.

RSVP | Thread