I'm not sure it is an accurate characterization to say, "without prisoner or civil rights". I think these people have both. But they aren't entitled to be treated in the same way as an American accused of a crime is.
They are not given Geneva convention prisoner rights and as far as I know most have not been charged with anything, given representation, plead innocent or guilty, and given a trial (which I consider normal civil rights, not something exceptional for US citizens, its just normal civil rights in most of the developed world). Why do you think they "have both"?
As to whether they should be there, I just don't know. But I really don't care. In my view there is at least a 50% chance most of them should be there, so that's good enough for me.
Doesn't the fact that after two plus years most of them have not been tried and convicted make you think that the case against them (whatever it is, we don't know) is weak? If the case was strong, I'm pretty sure George would have barbecued them as soon as possible (or at least after all their intelligence was extracted). How did you conclude (when you admit you have no idea whether they should be there) that at least 50% should be? I have never heard how it was determined which people in Afghanistan were taken to Gitmo, and which were released. Never! Have you?
These are difficult times.
If you listen to GOP spin. And it still doesn't explain two plus years of detention for unaccused, unconvicted, non-prisoners. At least not in the freedom loving, human rights loving USA. Gitmo-style treatment of detainees may fly in Libya, but its not American.
Don't you at least agree that two years is enough time to either give them a trial or release them?
You need to examine your candidate's rhetoric more carefully, and look at his actions more thoughtfully. |
