Replies

By the ususal rules of reciprocity in international affairs, if the US is allowed to go to foreign countries and seize people and hold them without trial, other countries will do the same to us. Libya used to send assassins to kill dissidents in the US for breaking US laws. Keeping the guys without recourse to attorneys is much the same as those countries that kidnap US citizens and hold them without counsel.

Of course, just letting them see an attorney doesn't guarantee that anyone will be set free. Most people executed or doing life in the US prison system had an attorney.

I think this is beside the point, since they would have to be at war with us to act in this manner. There is no threat to our citizens under int'l law.
The people at Gitmo are either (1) POWs in an ongoing conflict, (2) unlawful combatants in an ongoing conflict, (3) POWs after war, (4) same as (2) but after war. We certainly were at war with the Taliban, and probably still are. Unless there is an issue about their status as POWs, there isn't even a legal question FOR a trial, so a trial is pointless. A real POW is not assumed by anyone to have done anything wrong. Moreover, even those classified as unlawful combatants get practically the same treatment. This was war, and unlike Padilla, they were captured in a combat zone; it is military matter, unless Congress acts.

By the ususal rules of reciprocity in international affairs, if the US is allowed to go to foreign countries and seize people and hold them without trial, other countries will do the same to us.

If they invade the United States, I would fully expect such seizing. No warrants to search fox-holes. No reading of Miranda rights when shooters taken into custody. You seem to not realize that wars have been fought for centuries, and that there are long-established rules on this stuff. On the other hand, being a soldier and fighting under command of a nations authorities is not considered a crime and they may not be punished - though these POWs may be held. That unmarked combatants (illegal) may be summarily executed is a measure to protect non-combatants from direct action against them by combatants.

That so many people regard this issue in a historical vaccuum, and seem to further disregard the particulars of the cases, makes me question their basic mental competence - especially how vigourous they hold their opinions..

The gray area is in circumstances such as Jose Padilla - though the precedent is that he could indeed be held as an enemy combatant - his being part of a foreign military force. He cannot be further punished (such as required to to perform labor beyond taking care of themselves, nor required to compensate for upkeep) though until he is charged.