Recently the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Bush administration on important issues affecting the War on Terrorism (GWOT), one of the most recent rulings on the status of unlawful combatants at Guantanamo prisoners.
The Supreme Court has recognized that the War on Terrorism is legal and therefore can be considered prisoners of war prisoners. This is essential because the U.S. recognizes the right to hold them as prisoners until the end of the war and to subject them to military trials for war crimes, which is the basis of legal arguments that defended the Bush Administration during these years. Have used the same as all U.S. presidents in wartime.
Thus, the Supreme Court rulings Rasul v. Bush, in 2004, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 2006, and Boumediene v. Bush, in 2008, only came to make remarks or legal qualifications to this basic argument.
What has given the Supreme Court what has not heard or a sector of the press and some anti-Bush and anti-American governments, and much of world public opinion, increasingly misinformed and manipulated, despite the saturation of information, it is simply a modification to the approach Legal Bush Administration regarding Guantanamo detainees.
What is the core of discussion in this debate? Islamist terrorists do not wear uniforms, do not defend any rule of law or constitution, and often work among the civilian population, using as a shield or a victim. This allows, being taken prisoner, to deny their status as combatants. This is what is at issue: is U.S. evidence that these prisoners are enemy combatants?
What says the Supreme Court cited above is to be the civil courts who determine first whether the prisoner can be held as such until the end of the war, if it is and prior to trial by a military tribunal as a war criminal. Thus, the civil court it will do is listen to the writ of habeas corpus and determine whether it is a terrorist or not, if it were, remain in military hands. Likewise, the trial that can be submitted for the crimes committed, will be military.
Some media and sectors, which so often distort everything, deceiving and manipulating people, and governments unfriendly to President Bush, so given the nonsense, exaggeration and ignorance have made a misreading or maliciously, pretending that the Guantanamo prisoners should be tried under ordinary criminal law. False. Wrong. Manipulated.
There is something very clear: Islamist terrorists, be considered unlawful combatants, will not be treated as criminals but as what they are: terrorists. And the control over these terrorists prisoners will remain in the hands of the U.S. military, either based on existing laws or the enactment in the future.
This is going to happen, of course, in the remainder of President Bush and whether McCain wins if Obama wins in November, whether Guantanamo and other detention centers continue to operate as if these prisoners are channeled to other detention facilities.
The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the core argument in Bush's War on Terror. But do not recognize who you are almost pathological hatred and sick, those who refuse to see the arguments as they are. More will certainly be truth.
Bush was right. That hurts.
And in the meantime, Canada has accepted 550 tons of refined uranium from the nuclear program of Saddam Hussein. If that unite all Americans and international experts have acknowledged that the former Iraqi regime had the ability to resume their programs of biological and chemical weapons, in addition to nuclear, we find the real threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his programs weapons of mass destruction, he denounced Bush as one of the arguments for intervening in Iraq.
This neither recognize his opponents and critics. They spoil their image of Bush and should admit that their criticism has been unfair.
But Bush was also right in this.
0 comments:
Post a Comment