USA Guantanamo Bay. Do Americans support this ?http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4774566.stm?
544526
As with all things, some Americans support it totally, some oppose it totally, a bunch are somewhere in between, and some have no knowledge or opinion about it.\n\nThere are obvious logical problems with an "innocent-until-proven-guitly" nation running a Guantanamo.  The article probably does not pick the best example to illustrate the problem, though, since the particular prisoner did sound like a nut.\n\nYour narrow definition of "defense" probably does not make a lot of sense in today's world; it sounds like form over substance.\n\nI don't think you should feel pity for American civilians.  Like people in most countries (but maybe more so), most do not spend a large amount of their lives and time studying and thinking about politics.    \n\nIronically, so many people still see the USA as a "dream country" that there is a big immigration and border control controversy lately.\n\nI don't think Muslims are a "different breed" of people.  Most Muslims are probably a lot like most Christians and Jews.  Extremist Muslims are probably somewhat like extremist Christians and extremist Jews.  The groups could trade places, and I think little would change.  All the groups are just people who get angry about things, and a segment within each group expresses anger in violence.
186096
The company in Dubai that wanted to buy the ports from Great Britain own ports around the world. They are a reputable company, and I am sure it all boiled down to the all mighty dollar, or pound sterling as the case may be. You have to remember that it was not the government of Great Britain selling the ports, but a company based in Great Britain. I am sure we have many corporations and business in America that do business that the government would not approve of.
1111652
I (american) completely agree with you that our country has been completley out of line in trying to be the worlds "big brother". You should know that your mirror will only show what is shown to it.  My mirror would show acceptance and love for all people. I was deeply disturbed by one of your previous posts. Please dont think that americans actually have a voice in whether or not we go to war! How would you feel if I was one of the closeminded americans that thinks that just because you are middle eastern, you know the terrorists and can make them stop if you want. I can't even begin to understand what it feels like to live in a warring country, my condolensces to you and yours. But remember that not seeing all sides of the story is one of the problems that led us to where we are today.  You are obviously very upset, and for good reason. So I would like to personally appologize to you for the occupation, although I have absolutely no control over it. By opening our eyes and truly thinking about things before we believe them, we might eventually be able to achieve peace. I wish you, and your family, and Iraqi and American troops peace. Please rethink your hatred for all americans and know that there are many of us here that agree with YOU rather than our own government. By finding a way to see that no culture as a whole is inherantly evil and that every individual is different and needs to be respected, you too will be a part of the path to peace.  Peace to you my brother. Tasharrafna. Shukran.
1165556
I'm not weighing in on all the pros and cons of the Gitmo camp, nor am I evaluating whether or not the constitution applies to the Gitmo detainees or the permissions granted to Homeland Security to bypass certain parts of the constitution.\n\nI just want to make a couple of remarks.\n\nThe detainees in Gitmo who are true combatants and/or are members of al Qaida, and/or are Talibani, and who are not American citizens have no protection under the US constitution.  If they hold US citizenship, but were captured as combatants, they forsook that citizenship and are legally considered traitors as well as enemy combatants.   If there are US citizens detained at Gitmo and they are not al Qaida or Talibani, and were not enemy combatants, and were not captured in war zones of Afghanistan and/or Iraq, then they may have recourse to due process under constitutional law .\n\nHowever -- under Homeland Security and all the powers we granted to the department, constitutional due process is allowed to be suspended so long as it can be shown that a detainee does or did present a threat through action or conspiracy.\n\nIn short, we the people have said that in order to pursue the "war on terror," we will allow certain suspensions of and allowances or leeway in interpretations and applications of constitutional law including due process, habeas corpus, and much, much more.\n\nNow, as I said, I am not saying anything about what is right or wrong about anything involved in these issues, in terms of the constitutionality of many things done in the name of Homeland Security and the war on terror.\n\n\n\nI see it as unfortunate if Gauntanamo detainees chose suicide as an alternative to despair over their situation; however, only in so much as I feel regret over any needless death.  Furthermore, if their despair was due to their being frustrated terrorists or captured combatants in any ongoing war, I feel no sympathy whatsoever for their despair in that case.\n\nIf any or all sought to garner attention for their cause as detainees, I regret their choice of method.\n\nHowever, if any or all sought to muster support for their agendas as terrorists or combatants, then I hold them in the same contempt as I do their brethren, the suicide bombers who used their deaths to try to further their campaign of terrorism.\n\nLast, and I know this sounds cold,  but I feel much better knowing that a suicide died alone rather than taking others with him, like bombers are doing every day.\n\nP.S.  In times of war, it is customary to hold prisoners so long as hostilities continue, therefore it is entirely arguable that as so long as hostilities continue in Afghanistan and Iraq, then repatriation may be denied.  By extension, in the case of al Qaida members, as a group who declared war on the US and as a group without a nation, they present a special case wherein "repatriation" and "end of hostilities" are indeterminable by previous or traditional means and practices.  \n\nDo you want to return avowed enemies of the US to a status of active combat against us?
834918
Many Americans are unaware that Bush's enactment of the MCA was in appeasement of liberals' whining about the extraordinary rendition.\n\nIt seems liberals are now whining about Gitmo.  At least this way, the liberals know where their enemy combatants are.
316971
Yes, Americans will allow Bush to do what he wants. The administration has succeeded in paralyzing many people into non-action. I recommend that you go here, and get invovled!\nBush is not,"We The People", but it is clear he doesn't care much what we think.\n\nhttp://www.thefourreasons.org/
356553
Are you American?  If not, your opinion is like an arsehole we all have one.  If you are NOT American, how would you feel if the did it to yours?  \n\nI will not ever support the illegal aliens of any country that is trying to get a free ride into my country.  You shouldn't either!!!
1112707
Probably all of them.\n\nBTW, why is it that there are people posting here who dont believe that the US breaches human rights law?\n\nwhy is that so hard to believe? i'm sure if you visited ANY prison in the US (not even including Guantanamo Bay), you would find cases of human rights abuse.
995778
I think "cantcu" was being sarcastic by saying it was a success ...\n\nI think the majority of Americans in the USA have too big of egos to accept aid/help from anyone exspessially Cuba\n\nMy biggest American hero, Hmm that's hard to say... can't think of any off the top of my head, sorry. I believe we can all be heros though.\n;-)
592645
It is generally in the interests of the US to abide in the hope that its opponents will treat US soldiers well in exchange.\n\nHowever, since terrorists are not lawful combatants and do not reciprocate good treatment the US should be following its own consicence in the matter. Guantanamo isn't an example of this because of the first point I made. Moreover, by most accounts the inmates there are fed well and regularly, clothed, allowed religious practice and visits from rights monitors to some extent. This is more than has happened for combatants in most wars - Vietnam and North Korea didn't grant access to US POWs for example.\n\nThe US is doing well in this regard, despite the silly and historically stupid 'Gulag' comparison of an Amnesty report - that wil forever haunt AI, as it was once an genuinely non-partisan and worthy organisation.
760390
Yes they should!...When American POW's were being abused by the North Vietnamese, The USA made a big thing about it and they were right to do so.\n\nWhy should the USA be excluded in following The Geneva Convention?\n\nIf The USA refuses to follow The Geneva Convention Treaty, it might as well be tossed because no other Country will follow it either...then all POW's including Americans will be screwed!
212906
Actually the statistics quoted, although impossible to verify, are probably very close to the truth, and the American government has already aknowledged this.\n\nThe indefinate detainment of prisoners at Guantanamo (or anywhere else in American custody) is illegal.  This practice violates the Geneva Convention, the US Constitution and rulings that have already been handed down by the United States Supreme Court.\n\nThe Bush Administration will never willingly release them because George Bush has based his legacy on fighting "terrorists".  He will not admit that the people they have apprehended actually are not terrorists, and he will not free them as long as he insists that they are.\n\nIn the name of protecting freedom, Bush has trampled all over the Constitution and the principles by which we define freedom itself.  His positions are illogical, contradictory and completely indefencable.  But I wouldn't expect him to change.
167057
Bush isn't selling the ports ... they already belong to a British company that is selling them to a company from the UAE.\n\nAnd US always has and will continue to be responsible for security at the ports, regardless of what company owns them
998688
A UN report condemns 'torture' at the detention camp. But, like other revelations in the 'war on terror', the reaction is to deplore the publicity and ignore the brutality. In the US, meanwhile, the report barely registered with a media industry still obsessed with Dick Cheney's shooting accident. It got even less attention than the disclosure, earlier last week, of new photographs of the 2003 abuse in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq which were more shocking than any seen before. Although the evidence reinforced the belief in much of the world that both Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are symptoms of American disregard for any rules in the "war on terror", none of this was reflected in major US newspapers, which put reports on the new photographs on inside pages, and did not print any of them. The Bush administration was able to brush off both the Iraq and the Guantanamo affairs. \n\nhttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13597.htm
1028115
I am not American and therefore I don't qualify to answer this question, but I just have to comment on some of the other answers:\n\nTo tyingtobenice: \n\nIf you're trying (as opposed to tying) to be nice, you have a funny way of doing it. I don't think America is in the business of making its European allies 'pay through the nose for every thing they have said'.  The American people however, might do well to take a look more critically at what is being done in their name and decide if there is any truth to the allegations (which were made by the American media, not by the Europeans - the Europeans investigated their own involvement in this sordid affair).\n\nTo Rambo Smurf: \n\nIt wasn't the European press that made the allegations - it was the American media! The Europeans investigated only their own involvement in the rendition and overseas torture programme operated by the US. \n\nTo Daniel B: \n\nWhere is the evidence that your Government keeps you safe? America's actions against the Islamic World are fomenting such hatred that attacks on America and its interests are assured well into the future. You are not being protected by your Government - it is making you a target!\n\nYou also miss the point of the question - we all accept that despotic States torture people. Are you happy that one of those despotic States is your own?\n\nTo marilyn: \n\nHave you stopped to think why America was targeted so viciously? Was it because America was a generous friend of the Islamic States of the Middle East? Have you asked yourself why America has not made the same investment in the Arab World as it has in Israel? \n \nCan you imagine the horror the people and familes who have been the victims of US-aggression in Middle East went through?\n\nAs the questioner asks, are you happy that America, your country, kidnaps people and takes them to third countries that torture them for America's pleasure? Are you happy that America is being counted with the despot States of the World - that your country is viewed as a place of violent primitives? It sounds like you may be one of them when you say 'They deserve whatever they get'. \n\nTo david b:\n\nSo by your comments it is clear you support whatever the British might choose to do to the Irish, or the Spanish might do to the Basques? I guess from now on we can assume America will stop supplying funds to the IRA and urge Britain to develop a kidnap and torture programme to keep the uppity Irish in place.\n \nTo amyza29: \n\nSo you bury your head in the sand and it will all go away. Europe is your biggest trading partner and your only reliable ally and friend. When Europe starts to accuse America of despotism it is time for Americans to take note - you will feel it in your pockets as Europe looks to spend its money and its time with more acceptable friends.\n\nTo mymadsky: \n\nIt is your media that broke this story and the Europeans are investigating their own involvement in a disgraceful failure of civilised behaviour. \n\nSo what's my point?\n\nI am really concerned that Americans as citizens, do not look critically at the actions of their own Government. Terrible things are being done by the Bush Administration and they're being done in the name of the American people. Yet, as this question illustrates, many Americans seem happy to condone actions that smack of third World despotic dictatorships. What is wrong with America in the 21st Century that its citizens support imprionment without trial, kidnap and torture - all of it without adequate evidience of any wrong doing?
205884
Who said American's support him? \n\ncheck out the following link, it'll light up your world
301254
Hello Vince, I do not (Support Illegal Immigration) because I would be supporting something that is against the laws of the United States. I do though Support Legal Immigrants. If I went to your Country they would probably arrest me & have me De-ported. I cannot & will not (Support An Illegal Act)this should not be mis-understood! The United states Tax Paying Citizen has to pay for the Authorities to House Illegals in our Jails& the Jails have been overcrowded for many years now. I have not heard anyone saying that they won't Support a Legal Immigrant. The American Citizen worked the Fields before the Mexicans did here in america, & now they do not want to pay what the American is really worth. I Love Mexico & it's (Sweet & Innocent People over there. If the Illegals just waited it out to become Citizens than what is the Big Problem.  Good Luck & Take Good Care.