No, Military.
It is my understanding that the detainees in Gitmo were not being given trials, at least not all of them, and were being punished/tortured. Am I wrong?
Let me clarify, I believe we should hold trials during the war and if they are innocent set them free. I think I was trying to justify in my head the thought that some of the detainees would turn against us because of their experience in Gitmo. But, if we treated them fairly in the first place they would not be a threat, theoretically.
They are only principals if you stand by them while inconvenient. I would not resort to torture to obtain the information. I am assuming if you have proof they are an A-1 threat you have enough evidence to put them away for life. If prison for life isn't enough motivation for them to speak I suppose we will have to get the information a different way.
![]()
You have to understand the Bush/Cheney and the Conservatives that back their evil ways TORTURE MINDSET.
They will play word games all day long.
Here's some examples you have heard:
It's not TORTURE it's enhanced interrogation (drowning somebody with water suffocation)
We couldn't treat them as POW's because then we'd have to hold them forever. So we're holding them forever without trials at GITMO to keep that from happening.
They aren't POW's because technically they weren't wearing uniforms we recognize as sufficient. We knew they were enemy soldiers, that's why we detained them. In fact we captured most all of them on the battlefield. But if we called the POW's it makes it a lot trickier to TORTURE them.
And my personal favorite... Yes we could of TREATED them with POW's standards and still labeled them with some other name. But then we couldn't have TORTURED THEM!
See a pattern...
Look what else they "thought" they could do...