Those clamoring to shut down the Guantanamo Bay facility housing jihadists clothe their rhetoric in the language of "human rights." Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi, who spent four years at Gitmo after trying to enter Pakistan from Afghanistan after U.S. forces dispersed the Taliban, blew up six people in a suicide-bomb attack in Iraq last month. It's a crime against humanity to let such people out, not to keep them in.

This is why the liberal ACLU types (and John McCain) are dangerous. These bums aren't there for j-walking or for running a red light. They're murderers and unauthorized enemy combatants who should have no rights and who should be tortured at will if necessary.

It's a crime, too, if US citizens - and even foreigners - are placed in places like Gitmo without due process. Obviously, not all there are there illegitimately. I take it for granted that most if not all are there for good reason. But I strongly object to the gross violations of our civil liberties that have been made in the name of war on terrorism.

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't believe that our government’s representatives (at least those who comprise the majority) are sitting around, twisting their moustaches, thinking of ways to take away our civil liberties. If you’re not a perp you have nothing to worry about and, if necessary, expanded powers should be taken as a means to protect us not as an intrusion.

Most people who are sought, caught and detained for crimes in this country are not targeted arbitrarily. And determining guilt is not an exact science; there will be some trial, error and poor judgment. But I think mostly good judgment based on fact prevails.

Like any net, the big ones (the guilty) are usually caught while the little ones (the innocent) fall through.

But if somebody commits a crime against this country bad enough to be sent to GB and they are not citizens, should they be detained under the same rules as a U.S. citizen? I think not.

What I’d like is for the doubters to name another country on the Planet that has a fairer and more discriminating system of law and more efficient due process than what we have here.

Why is it a crime for a prisoner of war--I realize there's some ambiguity in what constitutes a prisoner of war and an enemy combatant so I'm using this phrase loosely--to be held without due process? Has there ever been a war in U.S. history, nay, world history in which prisoners of war were given trials and the like before we could hold them? I don't ask this mockingly. I am just trying to understand why so many people, whose opinions I respect, invoke "due process" language and apply it to foreign enemy combatants. Maybe I am missing something.

Perhaps we should say that "due process" is different for different groups: American citizens, non-citizen legal residents, illegal aliens, prisoners of war covered by the Geneva Conventions, and prisoners of war not covered by Geneva conventions. Isn't this correct?

I say Take no prisoners!

Are we really at war, constitutionally-speaking? Certainly not in Iraq, and even Afghanistan has gone way beyond the limited initial charge. Extraordinary governmental powers concerning prisoner of war can not be in effect if the people's representatives have not formally and legally declared war.

Further, how is it right for the government to round folks up on suspicion of terrorist links, not formally charge them with anything for years, and deny them the right of counsel? This is an absolutely crime and tragedy when it happens to US citizens (e.g. Jose Padilla). But it fails as a tactic for foreigners, too, for at least reason of the Golden Rule. We wouldn't want our own citizens rounded up in this way. (Even Nazis at Nuremburg found greater respect for their rights). Even under the Patriot Act - an atrocious, Orwellian act that undermines much of the Fourth Amendment - the Administration has gone beyond its authority when it comes to detainees, since that act says that non-citizens suspected of terrorism may be detained, but only for seven days - after which they must be released or charged, unless certified by the attorney general every six months that they constitute a security risk.

IMO Eric has hit the nail on the head as to the extraordinary powers government has claimed for itself in this "war on terror."

Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

Always has been, and always will be, because this "war" that has no beginning also seems to have no end. How can it, without so much as a clear objective. But it's a convenient reason for the government to claim all kinds of outrageous powers which are repugnant to the constitution all in the name of national security and "keeping us safe."

I actually want to know why we own Gitmo anyway? Let's get rid of it and a few hundred other foreign bases.

Why did we ship Afghans and assorted others halfway around the world to house them in Gitmo? Deal with them over there if you must.

The only problem I have with Gitmo is (because we're turning into a Nation of wimps) that the prisoners there have a higher standard of living than when they were free and on their own in their native lands.

It would certainly be better to detain them in a $hit hole Afghan prison where they'd be properly abused but I think the facility at Gitmo might be better for interrogation purposes.