Comments:Protests mark anniversary of Guantanamo detention center

Sorry
Sorry But i don't care and will never care for Terrorist and there rights. Why should i care for the "human rights" of a person that don't believe in them.


 * You should care because their rights are your rights. Terrorists or not; what they've done is irrelevant to the important point here. What matters is that people are being incarcerated possibly without trial which means possibly without having committed a crime. I'm all for taking away the liberties of those who decide to live outside of the common Social Contract, but there must be justice. Everyone should have the right to a fair and expedient trial. THEN we decide what to do with them. Do you suggest that your government should have the right to do whatever they want to YOU without telling you what you've done first? Shane.Bell 09:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Why should i care for the "human rights" of a person that don't believe in them. Human rights (I've always thought) applies to everyone by there definition (the human) part. Therefore if you feel that they shouldn't apply to some people, you don't belive in them, and why should the terrorists care about your human rights when you don't believe in them? (plus the whole, they randomly got put there without trial, and for all we know could have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, or someone high up has a grudge against them, etc, there is a good possibility they didn't actually do anything). Bawolff ☺☻ 06:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Unconstitutional
The USA Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantees its citizens certain inalienable rights. It is the President's and Congress's responsibility to defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Denying these rights through the Patriot Act and through Guantanamo Bay is illegal. Once we allow the government to behave like a dictatorship, then all citizens are subject to the tyranny of the dictatorship. It is Unconstitutional. In other words, the President is violating the law, specifically the Constitutional right to due process. He and his administration are behaving just like any terrorist or dictator. If you don't believe me (you be the judge), take a look at the Patriot Act and the Constitution.

Here is information on the Patriot Act:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_act

Here is information about the Constitution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States

Bill of Rights:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.194.176 (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * But these people are not citizens, so your argument is flawed. --SVTCobra 01:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You are unfortunately misinformed. For instance, John Doe v. Alberto R. Gonzales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.194.176 (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Also http://journalism.berkeley.edu/projects/terror/archives/cat_guantanamo_bay_camp_xray.html and http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E01E0D7113BF933A15757C0A9629C8B63 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.194.176 (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought we were talking about the people in the article. Who are you talking about? Doe v. Gonzales is case about libraries. --SVTCobra 02:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a case that involves the Patriot Act.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.194.176 (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is about the Patriot Act. But it has nothing to do with the detainees at Guantanamo or due process. Please stick to one topic. --SVTCobra 02:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Besides what gives the USA the right to detain and then deny the same due process to people who are not US Citizens? They are being held indefinitely (some for five years now, one is 98 years old) without a trial. That's wat dictators do. Do you believe in dictators? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.194.176 (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an entirely different from citizen rights, upon which you based your argument. --SVTCobra 02:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * True. And? The original argument stands. I added a new one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.194.176 (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it stands on flawed reasoning. To address your other question: yes, I do believe in dictators. There is a lot more evidence that they exist than Bigfoot. --SVTCobra 02:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You'll have to do better than that. Where is the fallacy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.194.176 (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought I had made that clear already. Please keep in mind that I am assuming that we are talking about this article and we are staying on-topic. OK ... so you opened with (and I quote): "The USA Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantees its citizens certain inalienable rights." I am arguing that, this matters not, because the people who are being held are not US citizens. Ergo, you cannot apply rights of US citizens to these people. --SVTCobra 02:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've stated my opinion. If you believe that people do not have a right to due process (citizen or not), then I believe that your logic is flawed. That is my opinion. I also believe that if you said, "I am a liar," I would completely agree. That is a logical statement. You are an equivocator using "logic" in the guise of disagreement. All you have to do is say, "I don't believe non-citizens have the right to due process." I'll understand but hiding your beliefs behind your so called "reason" . . . Well, feel free to do so.


 * All you had to do was to state that it was your opinion that the people in the article and (perhaps) all other people, have the right to due process and have inalienable rights. But, no, you had to go and claim that these rights were somehow guaranteed by the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The truth is they are not. You are the one who was trying to hide your opinion (which is all it is) behind rhetoric. Another truth is that you have no idea what my opinion is. And no, there won't be some 'big reveal' where I let you know what it is. Cheers and goodnight. --SVTCobra 03:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This IS an OPINION page. Is it not? Do you have a problem with that? I pressed the link below the article that says, "Have an opinion on this story? Post It." Also, I'm sorry to disagree with you again, and I'm sorry if you have taken offense. U.S. Citizens have been held at Guantanamo Bay. The following article mentions two: http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20070714/ASPENWEEKLY06/107150082/-1/DAILYCOMMENT . And as far as the gaurantees provided by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, that is a matter of US legal interpretation. The truth is those rights ARE gauranteed. Note the Fifth Amendment:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."


 * If you'd like to discuss legal rhetoric, then the real question of legality is if the US legal system considers the War in Iraq legal since President Bush claimed that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to justify a war. Since those claims have proven to be dubious, the legality of the war has been called into question. Thereby, the legality of detaining people at Guantanamo Bay has also been called into question.