When is the Bush administration going to do something about Gitmo instead of just holding 'suspected' terrorists indefinitely against their will. If they are guilty, then prove it and get on with their punishment, but it makes me sick to see our government hold someone for 3 or 4 years and then release them without a word. Our country would be outraged if a foreign country were holding Americans for suspected terror activity and just letting them rot with no access to ANY sort of legal defense. Again, if they are guilty of something, prove it and punish them. This is such a black eye for this nation.

I just shake my head at this. Who does Bush think he is?? This whole issue makes me ill and yes, a big black eye for America.

Doing this to the detainees is the exact opposite of what America should stand for and I, as a citizen, feel embarrased for my own country since this administration took over in 2000. Doing this makes us look like hypocrites.

According to the Geneva Convention, it is illegal to try soldiers in a civilian court. And, if they are soldiers, they can be held until the end of the conflict, in accordance with the Geneva Convention.

If they are not soldiers, who fight for a nation in a uniform, then they are termed 'ememy combatants'. In this case, they are treated as spys and saboteurs. The Geneva Convention says that they are to be tried by military tribunal, and punished in accordance with a nation's military laws.

So which is it, are they soldiers or enemy combatants?

Either way, you can't just ignore the parts of the Geneva Convention you don't like.

ArmyMedic:

Most rational people are not challenging the right of the US govt to detain enemy combatants, but instead are concerned at the great cost to our government and international law in terms of reciprocity, public opinion and international norms. The issue is the dragging of the feet. Action needs to be taken, NOW.

Bob:

The US Government has tried to use military tibunals to prosecute enemy combatants. But when they tried, every American hating group protested and threw up legal blockades. For these groups, it is more important to damage the US, than it is to prosecute the War on Terror.

Why do some want to do this? Well, because for the first time in many years, a group (al-Qaeda) is challenging what the they sees as 'US Imperialism'. They want to see the US weakened, and that means they will make it as hard as possible for the US to fight the war.

For the haters of the US, it is not about international law. If it was, military trials would have already been conducted, and we could move on. As long as the issue of the Guantanamo detainees is unresolved, the American haters have a reason to complain. They don't want it solved because it take away their reasons for hating (and asking for donations).

So which is it, are they soldiers or enemy combatants?

Neither. Some may be enemy combatants (although only 'illegal' enemy combatants are supposed to be tried by a tribunal - un-uniformed residents of a country invaded are considered legal combatants when they take up arms against an invading force), but it is without question that many were simply purchased by the military, in human trafficking transactions, off of warlords and those with local grudges.

In this case, what you have are "protected persons" under the Geneva Conventions and buying them, kidnapping them, shipping to a different country, and holding and abusing them without notice to family, without following the contact and treatment provisions of the Conventions - those are all serious breaches of the Conventions, aka war crimes.

This is why no "mistakes" have ever been acknowledged and why so many were found to be "no longer" enemy combatants once, after YEARS of detention without a status hearing, they were given the laughable excuses for status hearings that took place.