Skip to main content

Regarding the Controversy Over Guantanamo Bay

   The U.S. has faced criticism from abroad over detaining inmates at Guantanamo (foreign nationals usually) for lengthy periods of time without a trial or fair hearing. I already fully understand the original reasoning for these practices. The U.S. has been fighting a war on terrorism, so the prisoners could fall under the definition of "prisoners of war." Also, the prisoners don't really have the protection of the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution, because they are typically not U.S. citizens. I disagree with the practice, though, and I will explain why.
   The ethical distinction that should be employed comes from the fact that, by all appearances, the U.S. now seems to be using Guantanamo as a "detention center." The prisoners have human rights, therefore they do have the right to a speedy and public hearing/trial before an "impartial tribunal," as stated, for example, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Even in a time of war, it is questionable how far our country could go in depriving war prisoners of rights. The problem with the war on terror is that it has continued seemingly indefinitely, allowing for seemingly indefinite stays for some inmates without any kind of fair hearing.
   The U.S. should be allowing prisoners in Guantanamo fair and speedy hearing and trial proceedings- due process, essentially. It is bad enough that in U.S. jails and prisons where the inmates are supposed to be afforded Constitutional rights, inmates often wait very long for their case proceedings to make any progress while they stay behind bars. It is not that hard to say that the rights could be granted to Guantanamo inmates.
   President Obama promised to close Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp during his first campaign, but it remains open, some prisoners having been transferred. http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/15/politics/guantanamo-bay-house-bill-terrorism/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

"Night Fever," new song of mine could have many biblical implications

    Many people think of going to do something for the Lord like the preach the gospel, but will they really consider what the backlash would or could be like against them in many forms?     During my years of preaching with and alongside Third Street Ministries the typical level of discomfort normally experienced was just the prodding of scoffers and mockers in the mission field. It was kept from encroaching on our personal lives for an extended time, even despite posting videos. My testimony would indicate just how cautious, circumspect, and in agreement with your fellow believers you have to be in order to avoid a problem. That is especially true if you are working at the "trenches" level of confronting the unbelieving world.     In this new song "Night Fever," I just describe in vague terms one day in July 2011 when my ministry efforts with them finally got derailed more seriously. Tom of 1tmoch fame called my cellphone (or we called each other) and I planned to

A Song No One Knew Could Be About John the Baptist

     I’ve recently come to the conclusion that “One More Try” by George Michael could have one interpretation as being about John the Baptist. This would indeed a highly compelling interpretation of the song. The song seems to depict a man, sung in first person narrative (I interpret as being John the Baptist), upset by his previous teacher (I interpret here as Jesus), and trying to reason with another person he wants as his lover. This third person, (the lover), for the sake of my interpretation could be Salome, or someone else. The way that the video depicts him confined in a room with stained glass windows makes me feel like it’s John singing from prison before he was beheaded. He’s saying that it’s too bad he can’t see Jesus any longer, and could she please give him one more try even though he’s behind bars.       I happen to like this interpretation a lot, because it makes John the Baptist look like a rockstar. He was indeed said by Christ as being “Elijah who was to come” Matthe

Say "Hello" to the Man Behind the Curtain (He's the stalker you wanted to know about)

    I'm sure that a lot of people have sensed or noticed heightened vigilance in society over "stalkers." What most people have not probably considered is that the cause of the phenomenon of concern could be subterfuge of subconscious mechanisms (in coordination possibly with covert or subliminal efforts by corporations) by which people's unconscious guilt for participating with, being compliant with, complicit with, (or otherwise silently approving) harmful systems that do actually "stalk" average citizens for real, is projected on someone other than the real cause of their inner distress, worry, and heavy-laden guilt. These systems could include corporate America, the banking industry, the government (the IRS mostly comes to mind- thank you David Foster Wallace for The Pale King, the book from which I took down some nice notes to go over later, mainly concerning the political/economic theories of Alexis de Tocqueville, participatory democracy, corporations