The manner in which "suspected terrorists" are being treated is totally unacceptable. They should be treated as any other person charged with a crime. The Geneva Conventions on treatment of prisoners and the rights in the US Constitution should be strictly followed. The way they are treated is incredibly inhumane.
Laura Joseph

No!

NO NO NO, It's an abomination, I hate it, that the US openly supports torture and unlimited prison without charges makes me feel hopelesss about the present and future of the world.

you obiously no nothing if you think that abomination to keep dangerous people behind bars than your a discrace to this country

You are obviously a disgrace to this nation if you naively believe that everyone held in Guantanamo and CIA prisons are dangerous. This country was built on citizen oversight, not blindly believing everything you are told.

The way that the "suspected" terrorists are being treated is disgusting. It goes against everything that the United States stands for. While the non-American citizens do not have the protections of the US constitution, they should be treated with dignity and the basic human rights, upon which the US Constitution was framed. It is a sad day in America that we are no longer the moral and forthright nation, but are rapidly heading into a fascists state in the name of "safety".

The entire operation at Guantanamo is a mark of shame for our country. This secretive imprisonment and torture of individuals who may be guilty of nothing but "being in the wrong place at the wrong time" without any legal representation makes a lie of the principles on which this nation was founded and has lived. Close Guantanamo now!

Clearly, justice in "the world" today is much like rubbing two sticks together in a cave to build computers. We have a long way to go. So what should we do? I think the answer is commit to real progress in a scientific sense in the best sense of the word.

The LAW is not enough. Politics is not enough.

We DO have the ability to sort these matters out. Even if you or I, each with the many limitations of a human being, aren't able to. Society has the where-with-all if we really decide to.

However, we have to listen long and hard. I believe I...and you, have the power to state obvious truths about where we are going wrong, but who is listening? If we were really listening, when a correct statement of the situation comes along, we should not immediately stop at our legal or political views and go no farther as many of us do. We need to examine the statement and figure out if it is correct or not, based on all the facts and giving the benefit of the doubt if we don't know all the facts. If it is correct, then we need to start down the path its correctness leads us...regardless of our legal or political views...while we keep looking for an even better and more accurate truth.

Having said this, and assuming we are going to follow such a course, where does it lead us? First, we need to recognize that objective truth is multi-valued. Two objective, honest scientists can observe the same experiment and one, having better access to the facts than the other, can come to statistical results which are different from the other. So who is right? The answer is that they both are. Based on the information each has, the differing results will each be statistically validated by appropriately applied statistics over time. Again, both results, although different, will be consistent and correct within the context of the information which is known by each. And yet one statistic may say such and such is %60, and the other, knowing some additional fact can say such and such is %30...it is important to understand the results and the "truth" relates not to the situation, but the facts we have about the situation. To go beyond this and claim we know the "truth" is just rolling the dice where the chances of being right are random.

We each believe our own facts and decide that because of this, the others with different results are wrong. But actually, every party, based on providential facts can be correct within their own context and can be taking the best path consistent with the facts they know with the results that they can reliably depend on. I believe this particular kind of confusion can account for most of the wars and destructive differences over the ages.

Every particular truth is true only within a particular context. Without context there is no such thing as truth. In order to find a common truth, it is necessary to find a common context which includes every body and every known fact for discussing the "truth".

The multi-valued nature of truth is even much more multi-valued when talking about hot world issues where the complete knowledge of the situation is hard to come by...like the issue of these prisoners. We all need to learn to recognize this dynamic and put it into an objective and correct perspective consistent with all the facts and give the benefit of the doubt if we don't have the facts.

We must put aside our views and ask what are ALL the facts? Who are these prisoners? How did they grow up. What choices were they able to exercise? What is the LAW? Is the LAW fair and just and does it jive with real justice? Is the task to convict or to change the LAW?

How about politics? You must remember that politics is the process of choosing who has control. So who wants control and why..given ALL the facts? Is the characterization of these prisoners and the politics involved unchanged if we know ALL the facts? What is REALLY going on here?

We know the LAW is a blunt tool. Those that go no farther than the LAW are recognized for what they are by the masses. Do lawyers have a good reputation? Why? I used to respect Ralph Nader a lot, but he is a lawyer and his tool is the LAW and his thinking has become colored by that, so he made a choice about an election that was clearly more like a legal choice rather than one which takes everything into account. That same election, which by the way, elected George Bush, was disappointing because all the candidates concerned themselves with the politics of elections rather than the real core of things. They thought of themselves doing the right thing by the marketing hype that seemed to indicate that this is the way to get elected. Their rhetoric did not get beyond "staying on point". This is in spite of the fact that that those who looked beyond the LAW and Politics could have told you the kind of trouble we could expect from the likes of George Bush...even before he was elected...both times. Religious people talked about moral issues and voted for Bush because it was suggested to them as the right choice, and they did not dig so deep as to find the real truth of the situation. The real truth became obvious if you removed the blinders and took a closer look. But instead, we, as a nation, generally did not go beyond the LAW or Politics, and so we have ended up with people in prison in a way that would have never have been if we had made deeper choices back then.

I do not understand our so-called enemies, I am the first to admit that. But I do know that somewhere deep in every human being is the hope and desire for what is good and right, and that given the chance, justice will prevail.

You think not? Based on what you know and understand, your view is without a doubt vindicated and time will not show you otherwise..within your limited sphere. However, if you seek all the facts from both sides, and have desire to get at the real truth of it all, I am convinced you would come to a different conclusion.

In the mean time, we are still rubbing two sticks together in a cave, so lets get on with it and make some real progress.

In my limited sphere of cognizance the fact of 9/11 brought me to the conclusion that our so-called enemies are dedicated to killing all infidels residing in the Great Satan. Clearly you are on a much higher plain and are privvy to nuances beyond politics and law that could have avoided 9/11, which was, by the way, being strategically planned five years before the uninformed masses elected Bush with Nader's help. I sure am curious as to what you would consider real progress as you rub those sticks together in your cave.

I can't see how their treatment can be considered fair. They are held without being charged with a crime, without having legal representation and they are tortured. This sounds more like the old Soviet Union or nazi Germany, rather than a nation supposedly based on the rule of law. What ever happened to Habeas Corpus?

They are prisoners of war. They didn't rob a bank or hot wire a car. They are not citizens with a right to a jury of their peers. Did we try german or japanese prisoners of war in American courts? The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany killed civilians for no reason other than they could, and the treatment of our prisoners didn't follow the geneva convention. So did the Japanese..ever hear of the Bataan death march? Ever hear of the Hanoi Hilton in Vietnam? These prisoners are being well fed and clothed and even given prayer rugs. Under the circumstances, they are being treated more than fair. You want to free them so one or more of them can have the honor of exploding a suitcase nuke in your city?

Yes, as far as I know. These people are effectively POWs. We are a lot better off with them in detention than free to rejoin the taliban other followers of radical political islam. Remember 9-11??

I do. Prisoners detained are treated fairly, for the most part. Yes there are examples of abuse, and these cases should be dealt with appropriately, but these people are willing to kill themselves, and with suicidal people you don't take chances. These prisoners have also been visited frequently by human rights group, and they claim the prisoners are treated humanely. Americans simply have very short memories.

they should be charged within 90 days or relieased. regardlise.

Yes, Yes Yes, these are some of the worlds most dangerous and intolerant people. They are being treated fairly and should never be released to in danger civilized society again.

Indefinite detention based on hearsay? torture? who's the bad guy now, the united States or Saddam Hussein?
I think some people need to take a serious look in the mirror.

Absolutely not! No trial or date of release? Let me add that psychological torture is as debilitating and brutal as physical torture.

They are being treated better than regular criminals. They should be executed for their crimes! Obama wants to treat them like regular criminals instead of treating them like terrorist.

By all accounts, many of these men were caught up in dragnets that led to them being shackled, hooded, and trussed to benches during a 20-hour plane trip to Cuba, where they were kept in cages and continually harassed in the mostly vain hope of gaining actionable intelligence. Many of them were likely turned over to the Americans by bounty hunters or by rivals intent on settling local scores. Most posed no threat to America, but might should they be released and seek revenge for their humiliating incarcerations.

Detaining these guys indefinitely under these conditions is not prudent on the part of the government, and like so many security operations will create blowback that we don't need.

Torture -- I don't care why, is always unfair treatment. On the other hand, it is unfair for innocents to die if we can prevent it. The torture involved was too far separated from saving innocents to have any reasonable moral defense.
Any who supported such crimes against humanity should lose their positions -- that includes people who did not vote to end such practices.