The United States has a big problem of how the world sees us in regards to Guantanamo.
The U.
S.
faces many problems with the prisoners it holds.
Why? The United States captured several hundred people when the U.
S.
attacked Afghanistan.
These individuals are supposedly part of terrorists groups that our country is dedicated to eliminate from world terrorism.
Many or all were alleged to be part of Al Qaeda.
Supposedly, they were brought to Guantanamo to be outside the powers of the U.
S.
court system.
This has not proven to be the case.
The courts have offered consideration to the problems of the prisoners on a few occasions.
The idea of trying to keep captives outside the laws of the United States is more than perverse.
What is the United States fighting for other than for our laws of justice? What have Americans, for over two centuries laid down their lives for, other than for liberty and justice? Examine the stated reasons and conditions for holding about five hundred people in Guantanamo.
(That number has been reduced over time.
) The stated purpose was to gain information from the captives.
The length of time the prisoners have been held has to have made any information not yet obtained, worthless.
If these prisoners are being held because they were fighters and killed others, so have thousands of others (on both sides of these conflicts) killed others.
It is impossible to imprison every soldier.
If the problem is believing these five hundred people will become fighters against the United States, our government will need to lock up every Muslim student.
Most are being taught to hate the United States.
Part of their education is to prepare them to be fighters against the United States.
The reason for such education is partially due to the imprisonment of the prisoners in Guantanamo.
The U.
S.
should release these people, if for no other reason than to improve public relations.
There is nothing more to be gained but much more to be lost.
The excuse that this can't be done until world terrorism is ended, may be decades away, if ever.
CHOICES Suppose a fireman arrives at a house on fire; that house was being used as a "house of ill repute.
" Can that fireman and his comrades refuse to fight that fire? A doctor and nurse doing rounds in a hospital come to a room with an AIDS patient.
Do either of these professionals have the right to pass the room and leave that sick person unattended? Can a policeman entering a robbery scene of an illegal betting parlor just walk away? More to the point, can a gun salesman refuse to sell guns to known criminals who will use the guns illegally? The National Rifle Association (NRA) thinks that the salesman has no right to refuse a sale.
The government thinks otherwise, much to the displeasure of the NRA.
The point is that any person in any acknowledged profession or occupation must do their required endeavors without question.
If not, there would be anarchy.
No one would know if any person expected to do a specific job would opt out on personal desires or objections.
Can a pharmacist refuse to fill prescriptions containing cocaine because the druggist objects to using prescriptions containing illegal drugs? (That also includes the medication that is referred to as "the morning after" pill.
) Can the druggist assume greater knowledge than the licensed doctor? Can the druggist know if the physician has another reason for a prescription? Any doctor who permits a druggist to second guess him/her destroys the whole professional practice.
General anarchy would be created if every person in the United States had the right to refuse professional obligations for personal reasons.
This refusal would make any expected action on any one's part uncertain.
For a free society to remain free, a person with strong feelings should not undertake a job in which he/she may choose to refuse to do the expected services.