Legalities

Screw those people at Gitmo.. They wanted to kill Americans then let them rot in hell!!!!! And if a few are innocent then to bad.. they should of said something before they got caught.. If they let these jerks then I say that we take no more prisoners and double tap everyone on the battlefield.. It is better for them to die then to have Americans die.. Besides the world hates us now anyway.. FTW..

And another thing.. Sure those people are going to claim that they are innocent.. and that they are being miss treated.. That is the first rule that you learn when you go to prison.. They know that our messed up legal system has many holes.. and all one needs to do is start drought and that hole will open.. Then you have the lawyers, who want to make a name for them self by protecting those poor innocent (not really) people.. It will give those lawyers 15 minutes of fame so they can charge more in their next case..

Ok, Jan, what exactly is your point? Gitmo is not intended to be a resort!! Evil everywhere? What exactly would you propose? How would you handle the potentially murderous segment of the world committed to our total elimination? Granted, some may have been caught up in the sweep, but most of these have most likely been released. I doubt we Americans are so vindictive as to hold and pay the costs for the incarceration of the innocent. Finally, and I am getting so sick of hearing this, these people are NOT US citizens with constitutional guarantees. I know there are internantional lawyers out there that see dollar signs promoting this point of view, but it just ain't true. If you feel these people are so inclusively treated badly, send them a holiday basket this season.

I think that there is a huge difference between a resort and making sure we have the right guys and the right proof to convict. If we have it, wehre is the hard in having their day in court? Considering the lies and deceptions from the CinC on down, it is time for some transparency. Further, I was under the impression that a US base is considered US territory. I don't like them, and if they are lgitimately convicted, I'll be happy to pull the switch my self on any of them. We would not stand for our people being held or tried in such a manner.

Are you people serious???? You really feel it's right for the U.S. gov. to go around snatching people up without proof? What the hell are we? The Gestapo? Look. American lives are no more important than other human beings...and if you disagree than you need your HEAD checked. Part of the reason these people attacked us in the first place is because of our world POLICY...not our freedom. Stuff like Gitmo- just makes it worse. We had an opportunity to unite the world against terrorists and radicals but BUSH managed to unite the WORLD against us....GOD!...I'm so sick of idiots. Start using your mind people!

But the salient point is we are not at war. Only Congress can declare war. In that sense we are as much enemy combatants as they are.

Snatching up people without proof? Gestapo? Wrong on both counts. These people were gathered up with either a gun in their hand shooting at innocent people, hanging around the local Mosque making bombs to kill innocent people, or openly admittied complicity in killing innocent civilians for their murderous primitive cause. After 6 years of saturation from various reputable sources defining Al Qaeda's tacticts of tying the US Legal system against itself, this apparently has not sunk into many peoples minds. They give their weak minded Lawyers a pre-programmed speech with love and kisses then off their Lawyers run to the courts to fight for them (and indirectly for their cause). These people do not belong to the human race and should be treated as such.

OK, I guess after 9/11 we should have gone into Afganistan after Al Qaeda after failing to reason with the Taliban, with constitutional lawyers in tow. Excuse me mister Al Qaeda sympathizer, could you quit pointing your AK-47 at me for just a moment and take some time to speak to your US appointed attorney here about your recent activities and any possible connections with Al Qaeda and the recent attacks in New York and Washington. We won't take but a moment of your time. You see under our constitution you have the "Human Right" to our courts to prove that your AK-47 there and the bomb ingredients in the corner are not in anyway connected with the assault on our country. We are here to give you a fair chance to present your side of the story. Your US appointed attorney here has all the details. Thank You

Dawg.... How the hell do you know what all of these men were caught doing? The point is "we" don't have all the facts! The Military isn't being honest about anything...they just want everybody to believe "THEIR BAD...THEIR ALL BAD"! NO TRIAL! NO RIGHTS! JUST LOCK UM UP! WRONG!! WRONG! WRONG! We as a nation..as a people will pay for what Bush has done. This is Wrong. period

Look, I agree that we need to have an effective procedure and process in place to separate the good from the bad. I also have problems with giving terrorists who specifically target non-combatants and non-military targets (schools, hospitals, restaurants, places of worship) full Geneva rights. These problems are very well dealt with in the recent book by Jack Goldsmith -- Terror Presidency (IIRC).

My problem is with people like Tom Wilner, of Shearman & Sterling calling American Marines, Soldiers and Sailors "evil." Many of these people wouldn't be in the military but for the fact that we have been attacked repeatedly over the past two to three decades by terrorists. It's one thing to represent your clients -- it's another to demonize decent American citizens. These men are highly trained, highly disciplined, highly loyal, albeit lowly paid public servants.

Jeez -- wake up Mr. Wilner. Get a moral compass, you blood sucking lawyer.

Charisa, I think you are wrong. I don't think we would gather up these people without seeing something that was incriminating. The majority of these people were either on the battlefield actively fighting or reasonably believed to be lending support. Do you think we would waste transport space on cargo planes with someone who was thought to NOT be involved in Al Qaeda support? We wanted intel as quickly as possible and wanted to concentrate on those that could provide it. That's why they are continued to be held because they are still viewed as either dangerous or a source of intel. That's just the way it works! And the Supreme Court argument being presented today is simply "do these enemy combatants have a legal access to our courts to present their case". My bets are on No.

It is hard to understand why American citizens are so willing to give the benefit of the doubt to terrorists captured on the field of battle and automatically assume that the American soldiers who captured and are holding them are corrupt and immoral barbarians.
The qualities that stand out above all others in our military are integrity, honor and a love of America that is strong enough to voluntarily serve and put themselves in harm's way to protect us. Thank God for them!!

Joe Easley -

You are right. I think people like Charisa, above, don't know any military people. I've never been in the military myself, but I do know plenty who are and they are good, decent, hard working folks.

Also, I think of my uncles, whom I never met, who died fighting to liberate France in WWII -- they were farm boys - one had a wife and son. These are just normal people who put on a uniform to fight an evil regime. They didn't target civilians.

William, One more thought. I once heard a philosophical theory or "point of view" that has stuck with me. I never forgot it. It's called the "three generation cycle" or something like that. It goes something like this; The 1st generation has nothing, and out of necessity, create wealth and out of necessity fight for everything that they feel is important - freedom, rights, wealth, respect for one another, etc. The 2nd generation, their children, having not experienced it first hand, strive to protect all of their parents' hard won freedoms and wealth, knowing somehow that it's important (maybe they've just been told it is). The 3rd generation has never experience hardship, has inherited it all - and because they know nothing else but privelege, squanders it and loses it all. Then it starts over. That's a rough description, but I think you get the idea. BTW, FYI I'm NOT part of the first generation. I think I'm somewhere in the second.

The detainees are getting free room, board and medical care at the US taxpayer's expense. They are receiving more than they could provide for themselves back home so they should be grateful!!

It pretty easy to see why some would give the benefit of doubt to terrorists over their own country - They HATE George Bush more than anything else. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

gotta love the way democrats take the side of the enemy in addition to ripping us off with high taxes and then wonder why they can't ever hold the oval office for more than one presidency....the fact that they EVER get elected is some kind of sick accident...

Greenburg is the evil that pervades America.

During WWI, WWII, Korea, if we caught a person who was shooting at us or bombing us and they were out of uniform, they were considered a spy / fifth column. They were tried by military tribunals and if found guilty executed.

This is what we should be doing with these terrorists. What evidence does she have that most of them are innocent? Their word?!

If that were the case we would have no need for jails because every jail bird is innocent. Even when there were ten witnesses to the crime!!!

This is typical of the American hating liberal. Our enemies can do anything they please and they are "innocent" and we are "guilty".

Its time to deport the Greenbergs of the world to the terrorist state of their choice. The Greenbergs of our world are the biggest threat to our national security.

so they should be grateful!!

Please. Some serious comments, please.

Hey Jan, Do you know how many young soldiers we sacrificed bringing these "people" to our justice "system"? Tom

Lawyers may be among the least competent people to judge good and evil since our system is adversary based. There would be no criminal defense bar if lawyers refused to represent the "evil." To many lawyers the other side is automatically evil. To others, only the failure to receive a fee is evil.
For most Americans, the issue is not good or evil but reasonable risk avoidance with respect to Gitmo enemy combatants. Can we risk letting them go? If they kill after being released, who should be blamed? Who would you rather be alone with in a dark room? American Soldiers? Currently imprisoned Gitmo detainees? Too many Americans cannot fathom that there is anyone in the world who would slice their head off without a second thought. There are. You can choose to be a pacifist and let your own head be separated from your body. But you can't elect to offer up the heads of others or their children.

It's all about wthether (sp) these "combatants' get the same rights as we do. Hopefully our Supreme Court wil see through this. Tom

The above comments are an excellent example of taking what is mainly an issue of legal procedure (what standard of proof should we use, what should the rules of evidence be, etc.) and completely removing it from its legal context. While there are legitimate substantive (policy) issues here, addressing them outside of their legal context misses much of what makes this debate complex (and I think Ms. Greenburg was attempting to say that this is a very complex issue).

"Man who thinks" said: Part of the reason these people attacked us in the first place is because of our world POLICY...not our freedom. Stuff like Gitmo- just makes it worse. We had an opportunity to unite the world against terrorists and radicals but BUSH managed to unite the WORLD against us....GOD!...I'm so sick of idiots. Start using your mind people!

My response: everyone thinks. Man who thinks just does it badly. Your not seriously suggesting that before GWB, the world was our BFF? You must be (1) terminally niave (2) Communist or (3) Another democrat who wants to be president. You said the world hates us for our policies. Exactly what policies are those? We have direct evidence of the kind of policies our enemies would enforce. E.g. is your wife currently forced to wear a burkha? When is the last time she was beaten by the magistrate because she uncovered her elbow, or her shoulder? How many gay friends do you have that were hung by the government for being gay? Are those the policies your defending of our enemies?

Congress last year passed a law prohibiting the courts from consideration of habeus corpus cases from Gitmo internees-Congress has always had the power to remove any matter from judicial review via specific legislation doing so. This raises the question of why there is any hearing at all today, and why Congress(and the Executive branch,too) is too cowardly and incompetent to enforce it's own legislation, via the impeachment and removal from office of any judge who attempts to consider the matter and civil and criminal sanctions against arrogant blowhards like Tom Wilner.Reading the linked article at the top of this article shows what a depraved traitor Wilner is; despite the cowardly backtracking by the DoD hack-and his superiors, especially including the 'commander in chief'-last year, Americans should make themselves aware of exactly who is flacking for the Gitmo thugs, what law firms they're associated with and who those firms major clients are, and vigorously express themselves to all of them.The collapse of ordinary Americans respect for the country's legal system is the fault of oily shysters like them as well as power-mad judges and bullying law enforcement members.

Jan,

You join a long tradition of liberals that arrive late at the scene and see a pitiful, helpless criminal sincerely expressing their innocence AND totally out of context or proximity from the reason they are now at GITMO. Even an axe murderer seems nice when he no longer has the axe in his hand, his victims are dead or moved on and the blood has been cleaned up a half a world away.

These people were captured in a place they shouldn't have been probably doing bad things, they are not citizens, they do not have the same rights as a US citizen that I do AND I RESENT THAT ULTIMATELY I PAY FOR THEIR DEFENSE AT INCREASED TAXPAYER COST BECAUSE OF LEGAL DO GOODERS LIKE YOU.

For you to represent the view of these enemies on an equal parity with the views of the dedicated members of our military that defend all of us is an unconvincing display of moral relativism ("Evil"...Give Me a break).

Sadly, like so many lawyers nowadays you cannot discern the difference between right and wrong. All you see is a case to win.

So, what is the the solution? Give the detainees all of the rights and privileges of citizenship, let our left-wing court system find them all innocent, and relocate the lot to their own rent-subsidized neighborhood in Washington, D.C. where they can become entrenched as civil servants or members of the national press corps.

Just read the darned transcripts from the tribunals. Most of these murderers admitted their involvement, even bragged about it when they first got nabbed. Now ACLU types have come in and taught them how to use the media to beat the rap. Pretty disgusting. Those guys are the real deal, the face of terrorism and murder.

Guantanamo Bay
Detainees
As of November 10, 2007, approximately 305 detainees remained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

On November 10, 2007, DoD announced the transfer of fourteen detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Saudi Arabia.

On November 04, 2007, DoD announced the transfer of eleven detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Eight detainees were transferred to Afghanistan, and three to Jordan.

On October 16, 2007, DoD announced it would grant access for a civilian defense attorney to meet with Majid Khan, a Pakistani national and one of 15 high value detainees held at the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay.

Powell's Letter to Pentagon on Gitmo 'Strongly Worded'
Sunday, May 04, 2003

Neil, What is your point with this link? Powell's a fool? The remaining screened detainees are bad? All the GITMO detainees are innocent?

The important thing to remember is that the detainees are POWs with less protection than any "uniformed" captured soldiers under the Hague and Geneva Conventions; in fact, we could have sammarily executed these clowns under international law on the spot!
To imagine that battlefield captures deserve "constitutional protections" is absurd. Where do you draw that line? Can you imagine our soldiers shouting out Miranda warnings over the din of gunfire in a firefight? Simply absurd.

These terrorists are right where they need to be since we were nice enough to forego our right to shoot them on sight as illegal combatants (non-uniformed combatant).
They are still under those provisions--and POW status is not a requirement even today. Yes, we could just shoot them. So, if you worry and fret now--imagine your angst if you knew the actual laws that are usually cited in the defense of these terrorists? Ha!

So, forget the US citizen's rights under the constitution. These clowns need not apply. They are lucky to be where they are, and haven gotten there--we risk much by tinkering with the rules at this late date. The military treated them better than they had to, but not to the level that you or I could expect under martial law in our own country--and that is why we cannot now retoractively apply our constitutional rights to these guys---they'd have to be released on the spot under that standard. That is ironic, since under international law, we could just drag them up against the nearest wall...

I like the analogy of the 3 generations. It says that you have to husband what assets you have or you will lose them. If you don't believe the due process and justice are assets we need to husband in the US, then a future President Decider will be glad to relieve you of your remaining rights and principles. The courts need to protect us ALL from the excesses of the wackos in the White House.

How come the Europeans have been able to try and convict - or release the suspects that they captured. WHAT ARE WE AFRAID OF? I thought that we were tough big and strong. Are we afraid of a rag tag bunch of guys who are NOT an existential threat to the US and never will be?

to mangrovemama

-- that's just warped!

This first thing to notice is that over half of the detainees have been released. It seems military intelligence may have cast too wide a net over 42 countries to “locate” the original 800 detainees. Better safe than sorry? Maybe, but knowing that your round-up is going to produce a LOT of false positives, don’t you have an obligation to treat these people humanely as defined in the Geneva Convention and determine their status with all deliberate speed? I think so and think what we’ve done is the exact opposite. We’ve tortured them and imprisoned them for over 4 years. I don’t think we should torture any of the prisoners. And we should have made a greater effort to determine who was mistakenly (arrested/captured/kidnapped) detained with much greater urgency.

The argument of whether they are more like spies than soldiers and therefore don’t have Geneva Convention protection aside, casting such a wide net that produced hundreds of bad identifications should obligate America to treat them humanely and determine their disposition promptly.

I take no issue with the position that the detainees do not have the same rights as Americans under our Constitution. Detain them as prisoners of war, and give them fair trials under he code of military justice – or write a new code of terrorism suspect justice but se it up so it can produce a fair result.

I remember reading that habeas corpus has been suspended in the US. Will this case address that unconstitutional decision by the Bush White House? Anyone of us could be snatched up and toted off to Gitmo, WITHOUT the right to petition the government for a hearing as to whether the government has probable cause. On this one, I’m with the right-wingers who think the government is incompetent and therefore should not be trusted with this kind of unbridled authority.

A lot of the difference comes from whether one sees the detainees as criminals or enemies at war. Criminals get trials and Due Process. America (and other countries) have never given POWs trials. Here we have people who are enemy combatants which are not exactly POWs but not exactly criminals.

Pre-9/11, America treated terrorism as a crime. See first WTC bombing. Post-9/11 the country choose to treat terrorism as an act of war. Our dealings with the enemy are conducted with that in mind.

Hey, Lay off Ms. Greenburg - she's not saying what you think she's saying.

Jdk...hey nice jab at bush. Irrelevant of course to the article here but using facts, exactly what rights and principles have we lost up to this point.

European trial speed? Maybe 9-11 doesn't concern them as much. Why should we care about speed anyway as the GWOT will go on for years.Is there a pending prisoner exchange we need to rush to meet?

Existential threat to the US? Probably not to countries but what about people harmed in the future by released extremists? You don't care about individuals?

Let me get this straight: these guys are captured on battlefields killing the "infidels" and you believe they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Well, I guess it's hard to argue that being on a battlefield shooting at Americans probably is being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Now they are paying for their poor judgment.

Our mistake has been treating them humanely, we should have, as permitted under the rules of war, shot them as partisans without flag or uniform. Then we wouldn't have to deal with these sniveling liberal sympathizers who want to confer civil rights on these terrorists.

The detainees at Gitmo are lucky to be alive at all. If they were indeed involved in any terrorist activities, directly or indirectly, they should have been killed immediately. Subhuman savages who kill innocent people have no rights; not even to life itself. Until the West and all the stupid lefties, understands it is kill or be killed, our civilization is in danger.

I believe it would have been legal, according to international law, to simply have shot those detainees on the battlefield instead of taking them prisoner. Except for the necessity of gathering intelligence, perhaps it would have been better that way. We are in it. We should be in it to win it.

Can anyone say that all WWII POWs were entitled to trial (NO) and also explain why these terrorists are any better?

They aren't Americans. They aren't lawful soldiers. They are the enemy and terrorists. The US Military is on our side and we are the good guys in this. Some of you should try to remember that as you cry to heaven to free your own butchers.

Our guys give them food and their religious respect and what do they get in retun, feces and urine hurled at them. our guys are still not to do anything to them but treat them humanely. there is no proof of abuse at GiTmo. But you will look at any little sign of alleged abuse you can find . If you can't you feel a senseof duty to make your opinion to derise our guys anyway. No wonder you keep losing viewers and their faith. If it wasn't for the monopoly position you hold because all three networks report the same biased against America, you wouln't be around to keep spewing anti American propaganda.

The person who wrote this article is a Secularist. Secularists don't care a fig about the actual character of spiritual things. Evil is a not-to-be-trifled-with spiritual power and should be addressed as such. The paradoxical opposition to the Spiritual Power of Evil is the overwhelming Spiritual Power of Good. As one man said, we humans see these powerful spiritual things as though we we looking through smoked glass. This secularist describes her opinions of what is immoral or unethical based on temporal legal precedent. She has no clue about the character of Evil Itself. It is misleading and shameful when people who know nothing whatsoever about spiritual things use their expertise in another field to gull the unwary into adopting their dangerously uninformed opinions.

If the courts look to rule against the administration, we could load the terrorists aboard a freighter and commission it as a warship. With the prisoners no longer on a US military base but on the high seas aboard a warship the courts would certainly not have jurisdiction. If the courts continued to rule these murderers should be turned loose I suppose the ship could have some grave mechanical difficulties and sink. Miraculously the crew could be rescued.

On the other hand, let's just throw in the towel (so to speak) and grant them their trials under US law. Since nobody in my units ever read our captures their rights; the courts should be releasing these terrorists wholesale. My only stipulation is that the US 9th Circuit gets jurisdiction. Once released, may they find happiness in the liberal land of San Fran...

Sarcasm aside, the left is leading this fight to change the detainee status. Would they be so eloquent with their desire to try the terrorists in US courts--if that US court was next door to their house?

I think not. It is much like illegal immigration---the State Department has a program to "sponsor" immigrants. If you are so concerned about illegals in this country--open your doors as wide as your mouth. Same for these terrorists. If you want them freed, show me the halfway house in YOUR community where you'll be happy to house them during the procedings.

As with any liberal thought--it makes you feel oh so good about yourself---just so long as it isn't coming from your wallet or in your backyard!

While I have only read a few of the above entries, this is unbelievably disturbing. Some of you believe we should just shoot the detainees?
This is not a question of guilt or innocence--that is irrelevant. In fact, let's assume they are guilty, they still deserve (and are entitled) to some form of due process--that is foundation of our country. War criminals receive due process and so do run of the mill criminals. But the detainees have not received any process (held for 6 years without being told why!) and that is wrong (and, hopefully if the SC agrees, unconstitutional).

Sure, these guys are all innocent. That's why we recapture so many of them acting as terrorists after we release them.

Rational maybe, but able to follow the argument--questionable. Mr. Rat (shorthand, hope you do not mind), the question of shooting unlawful combatants is settled law. We could have, we can now, but we do not and did not. That is our choice, even though international law on this subject is fairly clear. We treat detainees humanely--indeed, we even let them live in the first place--it is all good from that point on, eh? So, when we hear how these detainees must now somehow be accorded their day in court--under US title codes, forgive me for laughing out loud. Tribunals as directed by the UCMJ, perhaps. But protections under the constitution are out of the question and should remain so.

Unconstitutional??? For real? So tell me, Mr. Rat--where does this constitution end its coverage? France (we took 'er fair and square, right?)--how about China--shall we enforce due process there? No sir--the constitution is set up for citizens of the US of A, and really--it only owrks worth a damn inside the US of A too. See how much due process you get transiting alcohol or porn thru Saudi; or user-amounts of marijane thru Turkey....yeah--the document is great, but only where it has effect. And the battlefield is not a place for us to muddle up the madness any more with such ideas, either. War is a bitch already---trying to conduct it with the first and fourth ammendments held over my head would be sheer stupidity. It follows too that captured combatants get no such bennies, either.

The point is, these detainees could easily be dead. They are not. That makes us nice guys overall. And contrast this treatment with the handful of soldiers captured by the opposition. Removal of one's head with a dull knife is not due process as we know it, now is it? This is not about tit-for-tat; we have the conventions and the law of land warfare on our side to hold these guys for the duration. I'd say their release is contingent on a handful of affiliated groups collectively known as radical Islam; the SCOTUS should have nothing to say on the matter.

Would you have also advocated the release of the thousands of poor Germans in 1944 just because we hadn't charged them with anything for years and years?

You really need to read international law on POWS, status of captured personnel, and the Hague documents. It will clear up some of your misgivings.

Now, prior releases from GITMO turned up in A'stan right back at us. As a leade, that sorta ticks me off. Maybe to you it is academic as to what happens when these guys go home--but to me and mine it is a very real problem--we hate fighting the same guy over and over. I hope that some Americans actually give a damn about their military and their missions--for we are, after all, your neighbors and classmates and coworkers. Think about that, Mr. Rat.

Keep in mind that more people have died in Ted Kennedy's car than at GITMO. Three squares and a prayer rug is better than any of these 7th century scumbags deserve.

Ms. Greenburg and other women of her ilk would be at home wrapped in burqas instead of writing articles of sympathy for these rats if they had their way.

Now who can argue with that?

You people scare the hell out of me. Many of the people locked up in GTMO were turned over by warlords and bandits, for REWARD MONEY. Why the hell do you think Habeas Corpus exists? Because the Government never makes a mistake? Or small minded bureaucrats have never, in history, sacrificed innocents for their own career? True American Patriots would die to protect the most basic rights from Government, not mindlessly go around inanely saying "well, if they weren't guilty, they would have never been picked-up." Why even have trials if that's the case? As for the one who said that these people have more now than they ever had before, my god you are a disgrace to my country. Why don't you go spend the next four years in solitary confinement, locked in a closet for 22 hours a day, and then say that. When did Americans decide Freedom wasn't important anymore?

Jan, You should spend more time investigating the "evil" in your chosen profession. Please spare me! Tom

Jan, You should spend more time investigating the "evil" in your chosen profession. Please spare me! Tom

"The face of evil often appears friendly.

It’s a sentiment shared by almost everyone you talk to, those on both sides of the debate...They just believe the evil lies within different people."

Indeed. Maybe Wilner's evil. Ms. Greenburg, you have a friendly face; maybe YOU'RE evil. Maybe you're contributing to evil without realizing it.

Thanks to the Internet and users' discovery of Dan Rather's lie, the day where any newspeople can act as gatekeepers and claim to be impartial observers is coming to an end. Deal with it or be left behind, Ms. Greenburg.

you say that detainees have virtually no way to prove their innocence but then state that out of 800 detainees 300 are left. how were they cleared? aalso why do you refer to our soldiers as part of the evil that is gitmo? i think you should re-evaluate the difference between law school debates and real life enemies of you and me. guilt clouds your judgement.

I love the way these media clowns toss "unlawfully" in their stories about Gitmo.

Care to cite "unlawfully" in the text of a Supreme Court decision or two?

The prisoner, described by his lawyer as an Algerian held for six years, required several stitches and spent a week under psychiatric observation.

US officials characterised the incident as an act of "self-harm" rather than a suicide attempt.

There are just over 300 prisoners still being held in the base in Cuba.

You're whole rebuttal to Rational (or Rat as you put it) sounds as if the US is at War--we are not! If they POWS, as you say, give them protections of Geneva. I dont care what sort of process they receive (habeas, military trib, etc), but they deserve meaningful process. Instead, the DOD simply calls them enemy combatants, and that's it. The unconstitutional part is the stripping of habeas--I hope teh SCT finds the act unconstitutional.