Hamdan VS Rumsfeld: Legal Issues and Ramifications
I believe that the United States government is acting responsible when holding terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay without a set date for a trial. While some may say that it violates their fifth amendment, I am not one to let my constitutional right to life be threatened because it might be a political hotspot. I am a strong believer that the government is there to protect us from potential harm and that they wouldn’t take any unnecessary actions that could cause harm to innocent citizens. With that belief in mind, I think that if someone is detained in Guantanamo Bay, they must be there for a reason, and that it is fine that they stay there (as long as they aren’t being abused or tortured) until the government has the ability to prove their guilt or innocence. If you were to let them wander free during this crucial time, they might wreak havoc on the people of the United States, and frankly, I don’t think that it would be a responsible move to let a potential terrorist walk free when you have the ability to detain him or her and to prevent them from causing harm. If the government happens to be incorrect in their presumption that the detainee is in fact a terrorist, compensation and a major apology in a press release may be in order, but let’s face it, the government doesn’t just detain people in Guantanamo Bay for fun. The detainees are there for a reason.
While
“The Court’s Duty in both peace and war [is] to preserve the constitutional safe-guards of civil liberty, ~Hamdan artical”
it is also imperative that the government protect its people from potential devastation. In cases such as these, I find it essential that the safety of the citizens of these United States be put above the civil rights of those whom pose likely threat. Some may say that this is controversial and that the government can’t do that because it will give us a bad reputation, but quite honestly, when it comes to national safety, no price is too high to pay for the security of the people.
on September 12th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
Technically, everyone is a potential terrorist, so shouldn’t the government just arrest everyone?
on September 12th, 2006 at 8:59 pm
While everyone may be a potential terrorist, not everyone was Osama’s chaufer. And as for arresting everyone, we are monitored just as the foreign terrorist threats are and if we show signs of plotting agains the government, you can be garunteed that they will detain you aswell.
on September 13th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
But there is still a difference between being a potential terrorist and being a terrorist. Everyone has the potential to commit any crime, but it doesn’t make us all commit those crimes.
You also state that you want to prevent harm unneccesary harm to innocents. But if the people in Guantanamo Bay are innocent, aren’t we just harming them? By giving them a trial and proving them guilty or innocent, we would punish the people who we actually had proof commited a crime, and let those innocents leave unharmed and only minorly inconvinienced, not locked in prison for years.
on September 13th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Deatining someone isnt the same as harming there. I dont agree with out lack of speed, i think that if they are there, they should be given a trial (quickly) all i was saying is that i beleive that if someone is seen as an unusaually high threat, i think that we have every right to detain them.
I would like to rephrase what i said.
What meant to say is that i beleive that they are acting responcible by holding them there, however, there should deffinately be a set date for trial.
on September 13th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
p.s sorry for my spelling, I forgot to edit that.
on September 14th, 2006 at 10:26 pm
If we monitor everyone, doesn’t that make us almost a police state? The government is supposed to SERVE the people, not be terrified of them. If they can’t keep us from wanting to be terrorists in the first place, they’re obviously doing something wrong.
And you still quoted that you didn’t want a set date for trials…which still doesn’t make sense….
on September 15th, 2006 at 7:36 am
Foreign terrorists dont count as the people, and dont have our constitutional rights. And most people dont want to be terrorists, so the government is reall actually just doing its job, and its not their fault that some phsychos dislike us.
on September 15th, 2006 at 8:12 am
I completely agree with Dan on this. The government isn’t arresting random civillians with no reason whatsoever, they’re just doing their job which is to protect us. Taking away the right to a trial from 400 people is a simple price to pay for the safety of 300 million.
on September 15th, 2006 at 8:14 am
[…] Alright. As some people may know, Danyel and I have been having a little blogging…spat. It hasn’t been pretty. And I was perfectly happy to leave it contained in his blog, until he came up with this little comment: Foreign terrorists dont count as the people, and dont have our constitutional rights. […]
on September 15th, 2006 at 8:17 am
Huh. I was going to post a link to my blog…but it did it for me. Cool.
on September 18th, 2006 at 9:07 am
[…] Check out the discussion as Dan defends his post on Guantanamo. Dan wrote: Foreign terrorists dont count as the people, and dont have our constitutional rights. […]