Obama's Bid to Close down Guantanomo Bay Prison

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by icegoat63, Nov 10, 2008.

  1. icegoat63

    icegoat63 Son of Liberty V.I.P. Lifetime

    [​IMG]
    This'll be big news for alot of people who are seeking Obama's change and action when it comes to the War on Terror.
     

  2. micfranklin

    micfranklin Eviscerator

    I don't know, I never really liked the idea of having international prisons, especially one this close to home and some of those detainees aren't locked up for good reasons either.

    I guess it sounds like a good idea.
     
  3. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    I don't really like the idea and here's why. It's one thing to end waterboarding but giving terrorists the same legal rights as US citizens? US lawyers are paid to try to get their clients found innocent regardless of whether or not they are.

    Some terrorists will have a ton of money and will be able to afford good lawyers. Others will simply find loopholes in the legal system. Bill Ayers for example... We don't need more people like him getting off Scott free because of legal technicalities.
     
  4. Sim

    Sim Registered Member

    That's really good news. It's a shame a country that claims to be a free country denies suspects, many of which are innocent, fair trials -- that's what Nazi Germany did, that's what Stalin's USSR or Saddam's Iraq did, now the USA do it too.

    A country where the right on a fair trial does not apply to suspects, and the rule "in dubio pro reo" is not in effect, is not a free country but a tyranny.

    Fortunately, thanks to Obama, America will soon be a free country again.
     
  5. micfranklin

    micfranklin Eviscerator

    Saddam was given a fair trial I'm sure after he was captured and his country wasn't a real democracy, so why can't America, the "land of the free" do the same of it's accused?
     
  6. Gavik

    Gavik Registered Member

    If these "terrorists" were captured in a legal way and the government has ample evidence to prove their case, they should be given trials and found guilty. Otherwise, the US has no basis to hold them.
     
  7. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    If we have to choose between assuming everyone accused of a crime must be guilty, and letting some guilty folks get away with their crimes, then I think we need to go with the later. Since Ayers now does good work as a professor, he was probably not a great example for you to use, btw.
     
  8. micfranklin

    micfranklin Eviscerator

    If I haven't said so already, some of those people in Guantanamo aren't even terrorists. Secondly if they're going to be tried here in America then you need to deal with it because it'd be the first time in a long time we actually upheld our country's principles of right to a fair trial.

    On top of that this isn't the first time a foreign terrorist has been tried here, remember that Moussaoui guy who was involved in 9/11? He got a trial, found guilty obviously and is now rotting in prison.
     
    Sim likes this.
  9. Steerpike

    Steerpike Registered Member

    If someone is alleged to be guilty of violating some law, then they can be charged and tried for that alleged legal violation.

    If there is not sufficient evidence to make credible charges that can stand up in a fair trial of an individual, then there is not sufficient reason to detain that individual.
     
  10. fleinn

    fleinn 101010

    *shakes head* like Steerpike says - how is this controversial? In any way?

    I suspect it's about how threatening random people on the street with abduction and torture is going to make terrorists think twice about wanting to destroy the liberties the US is protecting, or something - but I'd still like to hear it explained.
     

Share This Page