Evaluations of "Guantanamo . . ."
"Guantanamo . . ."
This article makes no attempt to hide its bias. It also sites specific interenational laws and organizations, and for this reason I may use it in my paper. It refers to the dilema surrounding the classification of detaines as "terrorist" rather than "prisoners of war." spearmint
This article is very biased. It makes the United States out to be an all talk no walk country. Saying we are supposed to not treat them the way they are being treated. It makes almost no mention at all at what they, some of the detainees, did to us on 9/11. Very biased. But has some good info/exageration to prove against the US if thats your thing. Personally too biased for me. It is also a recent article Jan. 2005. Contributed by Hondezy
The Guantanamo article offers a one-sided viewpoint on this issue that can be very useful. Since I find it hard to play the devil's advocate on this subject we can use it for an ultimate extremist view. Although we can use this source be aware it only has one side and it is infested with opinion based theory.
Contributed by HerbyHancock
This article talks about events taking place on a US naval base. While this is a US military installation it is not free to ignore the human rights of its detainees and prisoners. There is also mention of prisoners being denied due process of the law. This is as everyone knows unconstitutional but i'm sure everyone has realized by now in their research, that this is being thrown around by the press and denied by the gov't left and right; so this claim must be somehow verified before being used in a paper. contributed by Turbo593
Like many have mentioned, this article is biased. This article is good and could be useful if you are going for the equality of human rights and cruel and unusual punishment stance but none-the-less, accuracy and validity need to be accounted for and looked at when using this article. ~Contributed by Czechowicz
Link to this Page