Excellent point as well, Geoff.

Like I say, Al, I'm working on that gold star!

How is legal representation going to help when there is no trials? Only military tribunals. And as far as I know, there has not been a successful one since they started placing suspects there. So much for a speedy trial. 

To me, a military tribunal is the same as a trial for these purposes.

In this case I will always err on the side of National Security.

It may not be politically correct, but I would always pick infringing upon questionable rights of foreign nationals over dying.

I said if they were trying to kill our troops (the majority of the prisoners were captured while attacking us) that's proof.
---
So which is it?  Are they "suspected Terrorists" or "enemy Combatants" they are not interchangeable terms.  and were they attacking us or defending their homes?

What you quoted above applies to enemy combatants.  What I said that you didn't quote above was what covered suspected terrorists.

What I find most revealing is the recurring theme, again everywhere, that the people who are most stridently defending what's happening at Gitmo are those who don't want questions about it asked.
-----

I don't think thats entirely the case, Al. 

That was just him trying to do to me what he kept accusing me of doing to him.

When not supported by their own government, yes."

So it's terrorism when not supported by the government? OK.

Saddam Hussein probably supported civilian attacks on the US military afterthe invasion, so for those first years until a new constitution was framed, free elections were held and a legitimate elected Iraqi government could be put in power they were not terrorists?  

During World War II, in Norway and France (at the very least) resistance to the nazis was carried out without the support and against the wishes of the collaborating Quisling and Vichy governments (without debating their respective legitimacy).

Does that mean that these resistance fighters against the Nazis were terrorists?

It is the legitimate right of any citizen to take up arms against an invading and occupying force, even if the occupiers put in place a puppet government of collaborators. The fact that you don't like this because the US are the invaders doesn't alter the basic principle.

As far as I can tell, the US never negotiated a surrender of the country with Saddam Hussein, but I admit I may have missed that. And if no government official empowered to do so officially surrendered, then no truce was reached and no war ended, and every Iraqi citizen continued to have a right to resist the occupation by force.

Does anyone know when or if Iraq actually surrendered or entered into a peace accord with the US? I seem to recall some talk of something like that a few years in, but I can't recall an actual official end to this war.     

"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?"

Concern for one doesn't exclude concern for the other.

And again: we don't know that they are terrorists. Presumption of Innocence should be a universally applied principle, not a privilege reserved for american citizens.

That was just him trying to do to me what he kept accusing me of doing to him.

Let's not nominate you for martyrdom just yet Scott! We are all guilty of making statements based not on facts but on opinions.  Al was expressing his, just as you have expressed yours.

The following is offered in somewhat response to Knut's question vis a vis Iraqi-American agreements:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/14/world/middleeast/14iraq.ht ml?ex=1371096000&en=f15b149a87e1bc11&ei=5124&par tner=permalink&exprod=permalink