Anyone locked up in a jail without trial is a violation of a human right

I was over at Opinionated and got into a discussion. Jamal thinks all the inmates of Guantanamo bay should be set free (well they are brothers after all!).

I got a bit hannoyed and said I haven't got sympathy for murderous bastards.

Sonia labelled us as all as a bunch of 'reactionaries'.

Sonia: anyone locked up in a jail without trial is a violation of a human right

J0nz: True.

But we must ask ourselves some very difficult questions.

1. What if the person in question has a signifcant likelyhood of murdering 100 people at a time through a terrorist act?

2. What if we let this person go, through lack of evidence and they commit this terrorist act? What about the human right to life? What about the human rights of the 100 people blown up?

3. Why are they there in the first place? Did they not ’sign up’ for Jihad? Were they not in the company of known terrorists? Why did they travel from Manchester to Afghanistan in the middle of a war against the quasi-fascist Taliban?

There are no easy answers. But labelling people as ‘reactionaries’ because they don’t want suspected terrorists free reign is a little beyond the pail. We have enough violent criminals that are let free to commit another crime, due to lack of sufficient evidence. Someone who has intentions to commit mass slaughter raises the bar in what we can say is reasonable suspicion.

Any normal, moderate Muslim is not the slightest bit afraid they are going to end up in Guantanmo bay. Only those wilfully engaging or abetting jihad.

4 Responses to “Anyone locked up in a jail without trial is a violation of a human right”

  1. # Blogger Tu s. Tin

    I never know what to comment on your more serious posts, but what the heck. I do agree with you here, many prisoners were released and did rejoin the battle, though some did not. its too big of a chance to take. If they just started locking everyone up that might make it diffrent.
    There are issues of poor treatment and conditions reported that I am ashamed of but I know there are alot of buts in that debate also.  

  2. # Blogger Crazy Politico

    They are getting military tribunals, which is all they are entitled to. US Law is for US citizens, or those who are in the US when they commit a crime. Not folks in the sandbox blowing people up.

    I'm totally against the Spanish trying to try US Servicemembers for doing their job in Iraq, because it wasn't there jurisdiction. In that same light, our courts trying the enemy combatants would the same thing.  

  3. # Blogger Tu s. Tin

    crazy, (ha ha thats my name too)
    wouldnt a country who does not apply the same laws and standards they set for themselves-to others- in a sense act in disrespect to their own beliefs?  

  4. # Blogger Gavin Ayling

    Crazy, It seems a little odd to take these people away from another sovereign country and then try to pretend the US has no moral obligations!

    I am concerned about the morality of holding people without trial and in the general case (and particularly within the borders of a country not at war) it is wrong. But in this case they were collected, as Jonz said, in a war zone during operations or during captures on the battle-front.

    If you're due to marry, see your brother -- whatever -- when the US decides to remove the most ridiculously evil government in Asia, postpone your social plans to visit said country - really, really obvious!  

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link


Looks odd? Use Firefox!

Email drunkenblogging AT gmail.com

XML

Search