"The people in Guantanamo aren't just normal civilians."

How do we know that? When the government doesn't need to show that they have cause to suspect them, doesn't have to give them adequate access to counsel, doesn't have to let them confront their accusers etc, how do we know that they're even possibly guilty of anything?

The Bush administration has simply claimed that these people are guilty and they're keeping them until they confess.  How were they picked? Some people in Afghanistan and elsewhere pointed fingers at neighbors they didn't like and accused them of being terrorists (one of many different scenarios, but one referred to as having happened.) 

This is a modern witchunt, an Inquisition, with legal rights of the accused dialled back 500 years and I can find no moral defense for it.

Do not make the mistake of thinking just because they're arrested, they need to be guilty of anything at all. 

How was it determined that they were terrorists without due process and
little or no evidence?

Them trying to kill our troops is a good place to start in determining it.

If someone was arrested on heresay, I have no problem at all with them having the right to hire their own representation (at their expense) and get their day in court.

Is any armed resistance to an invading force automatically terrorism?

When not supported by their own government, yes.

Everyone is so up in arms over the civil rights of terrorists but what about the civil rights of all the innocents raped and killed under Saddam's regime?

Al.  You and I are never going to agree so there is no point continuing.  You aren't going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours.  To me, you come across as the type of person who thinks criminals should have more rights than the victims.  That's something I can never, under any circumstance, agree with.

Just so you don't think I only feel this way because they aren't citizens, I feel that even US citizens in our own prisons are treated better than I think they deserve.  There should be no television, air conditioning, etc. in prison.  They should be kept under extremely strict discipline and given only the most basic of essentials while they do their time.  If that happened there may not be as many repeat offenders.

Again: we don't know these people are criminals/terrorists.  In fact, we're doing everything in our power to avoid the burden of proof.  That should send up huge, Mount Rushmore-sized red flags right there.

Everyone is so up in arms over the civil rights of terrorists but what about the civil rights of all the innocents raped and killed under Saddam's regime?

-----------------------------------------

We didn't do that, therefore while it sucks, I don't feel dirty because it happened.  Not so, Gitmo.

Without directing this to any specific comment I think its important to again remember what the United States Constitution, and specfically the first 10 amendments (the Bill of Rights), stand for.  The Bill of Rights is the memorialization of what the government cannot do.  Its not telling citizens (or non-citizens for that matter)  what they cannot do.  Its telling them what cannot be done to them.  Its not a question of "criminal" rights versus "victims" rights.  Its a question of civil liberties.   

edited to add: The rights memorialized in the constitution are premised on the ideals that shaped the founding of this nation including that all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights that are self-evident.  The other important  thing to remember (from a criminal law perspective) is that in this country, citzen or not,* you are innocent until proven guilty.

*Precendentally there are some different laws that have applied to Prisioners of War or non-citizen combatants (which I think is a new term meant to deal with terrorism but I'm not 100% about that) which is what the most recent Court decision involved.