[Pat The Postman]

Sorry, but you extended, stretched my arguments up to a point where I begin to feel inclined to not agree with them anymore myself (LOL). Of course no society ever is perfect. Of course there are greater and lesser evils. Of course removing Hitler and Mussolini couldn't be done without causing suffering and harm to others. No dispute about that.
My great trouble with Guantanamo Bay is that some hundreds of Afghans were incarcerated without any process and are there now for four years. The great rights that are allowed to suspects in peace and wartime in the West have been denied to them, and the Geneva Convention has been circumvented by a dodgy trick: re-naming them 'illegal combatants'. They are, by all accounts, subjected to mental torture (sensory deprivation round the clock, or super-bright lighting round the clock, or American rock music (sorry, couldn't resist the last one)). America respects freedom of religion, so the cheap Koran-bashing that occurred there is a sign of weakness and a moral crime. The normal support of lawyers and a normal proceeding of court cases is being denied to them, and this goes also for normal application of military law. It doesn't wash, and it's a mess. Where are the great revelations that were expected from the Guantanamo Bay way of doing things? Have we found major info on what Islamist plans are, or where the main perpetrators reside? I don't think so.
As for Abu Ghraib: I can't believe that Graner, England and co. acted the way they did out of their own invention. The articles by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker point towards commands from very high ranks. And Rumsfelds declaration that he was fully responsible for the aberrations, and the fact that he did little of consequence for himself: in my country, Holland, declaring that you are fully (100 and not 95 percent) responsible, in politics and military, means only one thing: that you are doing the honourable thing, and resign. Not so in America: only one day later President Bush named Rumsfeld an outstanding Secretary Of Defense, the best the country had ever seen.
Later, Pat.

[silverleaf]

The great rights that are allowed to suspects in peace and wartime in the West have been denied to them, and the Geneva Convention has been circumvented by a dodgy trick: re-naming them 'illegal combatants'.

Pat, surely you are aware that one of the "guests" at Club Gitmo, Osama Bin Laden's personal chauffeur, had his case (and your arguments) considered by the US Supreme Court.

Which referred his case back to the (quite liberal) DC Circuit Court of Appeals for adjudication...which JUST last week ruled 3-0 that, under US and international law (yes they cited international law in their decision), this man who drove a mass murdering terrorist chief to his war planning rendezvous', was rightfully detained at Gitmo in the custody if the US miltary and was NOT entitled to Geneva Convention protection as an enemy combatant! Gee, those terrorists better start wearing uniforms and carrying ID cards....

So he was given the same rights and the same legal review by the highest civilian courts in our land, as available to any American who drives mass murdering terrorist leaders to planning rendezvous and is captured overseas in battle against US troops.

So I guess he's back to being a POW with free room and board (lemon chicken and rice....mmmm) and free spiritual counsel of his choice (courtesy of the US military) ... until his side wins the war or we do.

Sucks to be captured in battle, dun't it? Especially ask our troops (and our civilians) who have been captured by Osama's minions...if you can find any to talk to.