Quote Originally Posted by BanginJimmy
Some of them I do believe are innocent of anything more than knowing someone. Others, like the guy being reported on today are released then head out to Yemen and join back up with Al-Qaeda again. Each of them needs to be pumped for any info they have then tried by a military tribunal. If they are found guilty then need to be imprisoned there at Gitmo for their sentence or executed, also at Gitmo. None of them should ever touch US soil or be eligable for the protections of american criminal law.
Here is where I have some issues...How can we hold ourselves up to the world as the ultimate arbiters of right and wrong; of fairness and equanimity--as defined by our Constitution--and allow these people to be held outside of the protections that that very document specifies? If we truly believe in the rights and protections of our Constitution, shouldn't we apply them equally to ALL humans? Yeah, the Geneva conventions allow it, as they are not uniformed soldiers; but, from an idealists standpoint, shouldn't the Constitution supersede the Geneva accords? Wouldn't that stance reinforce to the rest of the world that we stand behind that document at ALL times, rather than when it is 'convenient' for us to do so? Just asking to see what others think...this has gnawed at me as long as Gitmo has been operating, and I'm not sure where I really stand about it.

edit: On further thought, is it not true that the Geneva accords don't really apply here, as they do not really address the concept of war against an ideology--that of terrorism and jihad--as opposed to war against a country, with a flag, an organized army, etc.? Again, just putting it out there.