A far more troubling situation is that all those killer whales in the ocean should be called ALLEGED killer whales--and each one should be provided with an ACLU lawyer. Or two, if they're really hungry.

I would say that it depends on where the terrorists are caught. If they are caught on the battlefield outside of the US, then definitely not. We have NEVER afford enemy combatants that right in any previous war. Why should the terrorists, who themselves don't even follow the Geneva Conventions, be afforded rights that no other enemies were afforded? ***************** "BobbyDias: Re: but only if they were born in the USA? Only if you help Bush! Bush fools people by lumping them all together like you just did- "but only if they were born in the USA? "BobbyDias: For all his live Bush complained about the lack of free speech in Cuba- then took those prisoners to Cuba so they would not freedom of free speech to talk about him! Most have been released because they are not terrorists!" Some may have been innocent bystanders that were picked up by mistake. If such has been determined to be the case, then they are released. However, many of those that have been released have been captured again on the battlefield trying to kill our soldiers. You can wine all you want about this, but the fact of the matter is that most of the people in Guantanamo are there because they were captured while fighting against our soldiers. ***************** "yohoho05: so 'all men are created equal' and are to be treated as such under the law, but only if they were born in the USA?" "ImAlec: How about *proving* they are terrorists (e.g. by a fair trial) before jumping to conclusions?" Did the Japanese or German prisoners taken during World War II get trials before we put them in prison camps? How about the prisoners that we took in World War I or the Spanish-American war? Pick your war. When have prisoners taken in battle ever been given trial before we locked them up? Name one war where this was the practice. ***************** "Captain Birdseye: When we treat terrorists with the same contempt they treat us, we become them, and no better than them. I respect your opinion though. How do we treat prisoners with the same contempt with which they treat us. We are not summarily executing prisoners. We are not cutting of their heads nor are we holding guns to their heads and forcing them to renounce their religion in order to save their lives. Instead, we are going out of our way to cater to their religious beliefs. The food they are served is carefully selected and prepared to meet their dietary restrictions. (Most of the prisoners are actually gaining weight there.) They are allowed to pray five times a day. We give each one his own copy of the Koran and a prayer rug. They have access to a library stocked with Islamic literature. They even have access to exercise facilities. The fact of the matter is that we treat them much better than they treat us. To try and draw a moral equivalence between them and us is absolutely wrong. ***************** Note- 'We have NEVER afford enemy combatants that right in any previous war.' You did, the Nuremberg trials." You really need to study your history a bit better. There is a huge difference here. One of these differences is that the Nuremberg trials were not convened until AFTER the war was over. The trials commenced on 20 November 1945. Note that was over two months after Japan's surrender. We are still fighting against the terrorists; the war is not yet over. Another of the difference is that the Nuremberg trials were specifically for the purpose of trying the Nazi political, military, and economic leadership for war crimes committed by the Nazis. These trials were not used to determine the status of the common soldiers who were taken on the battlefield. Those people were put into prison camps where they spent the rest of the war. They got no trials. They had no appeals. If a prisoner was suspected of having valuable information, he was interrogated. In other word, they were treated pretty much the way we are treating the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. So, what you are asking for is for us to give these particular prisoners rights that have never been afforded to prisoners taken in any other war in the history of this nation.

Everyone has the right to a fair trial, and be subject to the letter of the law. When the law is thw law, but not when the lawmakers feel like it, we become no better than the lawbreakers. We have the right to execute them as the law sees fit, but not to treat them unlawfully. At the end of the second world war, it would have been very easy to execute the head nazis when they were captured, but i feel that although it would have been justified, that wouldn't necessarily have made it just. It was fair, right and just, that they faced their accusers, (at the Nuremberg trials) and be made to give account for their actions. Many of them were sentenced to death, but ALL of them, even the ones that were executed, were subjected to a fair trial. Evil as they were, it is not any individuals place to judge them, merely our place to make laws, that criminals, even those guilty of genocide, be subject to it. They don't desrve much (in my opinion) but they deserve to be treated justly. The world is not a fair place, but that does not mean that people that live in it, cannot be just. Treating people unjustly is one step away from fascism, and two away from anarchy.

Yes. How do you *know* they are criminals or terrorists until they have had a fair trail? If it is an open and shut case, you can run the trial fast. But people make mistakes - and the person that /they/ thing is a terrorist just might be you. Once poperly convicted, they shoudl be punished. But don't /assume/ guilt, prove it. Once proven, punish. But if not proven, rmember it might be you or your loved ones, who just happened to be standing in the wrong place or talking to the wrong person. A Canadian has recently claimed, reasonably, thet he once spoke to someone who *might* have been a bad guy. The Canadians reported this to the US, and the US imprisoned him and sent him to Syria where he was tortured - all for talking to a guy he met. Imagine if that was you - because a guy you met might have a friend who was a terrorist.