Try this one out, please, you said,
One more time:The U.S. invaded a foreign country. It attacked locals and took many of them captive and shipped them to Cuba. They are being held in a PRISON CAMP AGAINST THEIR WILL.
Ummm, the majority of these nut cases aren't "locals" they're from out of town, out of state, a whole different country. There are about 680 people being held in Cuba so it doesn't sound like we took many of them captive and shipped them to Cuba.
Generally, when peope are detained, it is against their will, that's why the place has bars, wires, and guards, DUH!
Let's see. we invaded a foreign country (Afghanistan) because why? Oh, that's right, they were hosting a bunch of terrorists. You remember, the whole Usama bin Ladin thing, right? Yeah, and ummm, some of the guys in Cuba were at this neat place called Mazar E Sharif where they, being held as prisoners of war by the real Afghanis, killed a bunch of guards, which is a violation of the Geneva Convention. Then ya have the fact that the rest of these guys were shooting at American and Free Afghani forces, especially around that fun little region called Tora Bora, and that they freely admit to being part of Al Qaeda. But sure, you're right, we don't know what their status is, these Arabs in a none Arab country, these Pakistanis miles from home, these australians that were shooting at us, send em back down under.
Are you saying that the US can just walk into any country and take people hostage? If not, then how do you justify what is happening with these detainees?
These guys are not hostages, we're not holding them for ransom or protection, we're detaining them so they stop killing people. How do I justify what happened to the detainees? They were shooting at our soldiers.
You keep referring to them as terrorists and murderers. You have not the slightest shred of evidence for using these terms.
Actually,. yes, I do, aside from having lost several friends over in Afghanistan, I spend the last 7 weeks with a friend who didn't die, who took some of these guys into custody. Not a one of them has denied being part of Al Qaeda, everyone of them has expressed a willingness to kill US soldiers and citizens at every opportunity. That's enough proof for me to hold these guys till hell freezes over.
THere is no international law that covers how to treat terrorists, it's just NOT ON THE BOOKS. T H, If I'm ever taken as a POW I don't expect to be treated better, I expect to be treated far worse, I expect to be treated the way all other American POW's have been treated.
Now tell me this, what specifically under International Law, isn't being done for them that should be? Then consider the safety factors to avoid what happened at Mazar E Sharif, and the fact that these guys have threatened to kill the guards (yep, I'm taking the word of my friends that are dealing with these killers on that issue). Considering all this, what is it that the US should be doing that they aren't SPECIFICALLY!
Apparently yes. Because these people are not American citizens they have no rights under the US constitution, and therefore according to Yeru, no rights at all.
Show me where I said these guys have no rights at all. They aren't protected by the US constitution, the courts have already said so. These guys are given food, water, shelter, clothes, are allowed to practice their religion, etc etc etc, what more rights do you expect them to be given?
These aren't guys we picked up off the street, these are guys who were shooting at Americans who admit to being part of Al Qaeda, and who have threatened to continue to kill people, what more do you want. International Law? It's quite on the subject of Terrorists treatment...The US is writing the play book on it.