>>>It has not been established that they are Al Queda. In fact no facts or
>>>guilt whatsoever has been established, because the little detail of a
trial
>>>has been skipped. You've >heard of the concept of a trial I take it? Part
of
>>>the old-fashioned process of rule of law. As opposed to people just being
>>>imprisoned without trial, without charges, without >anything. Like they
used
>>>to do in the 17th century.

>>  It has been established enough to go to the trouble, danger, and expense
of
>>flying them half way around the world.

>Established by who? On what basis? Suspicion, based on undisclosed evidence,
is >not established fact. A belief by the the governing authorities that a
person may be a >threat is not proof. Lacking specifics, it does not even
amount to a solid accusation.

  By their captors -- and that will do for the short term.

>POWs of course are permitted under international law to be detained without
any >charges. But they must be sent home when the war is over. If they are
not POWs, as >your government maintains, then they have a right to be told
what they are accused of >and given the opportunity to defend themselves.

  Who said the war is over? As to the second, they have been accused of being
members of a terrorist group. I agree, the charges should be formalized and
final disposition should be in court.

>Back in the 17th century of course no such niceties were recognised.
Governments >simply locked up opponents arbitrarily, without charge. Those
societies which claim to >operate under the rule of law assert that such
arbitrary detention is unacceptable. The >US was, until very recently, one of
those societies that believed in the rule of law.

  There is nothing arbitrary about who is being detained.

>When a state abandons the rule of law and reverts to arbitrary authority, it
is known as >fascism, or just plain tyranny. Those who advocate this are
fascists. You seem to be >advocating or defending this?

  I would have to first accept your premise that the rule of law has been
abandoned.

>Basically, your argument seems to be that the end justifies the means, but
the >principle of rule of law is that the end does not justify the means.

  My argument was that the prisoners in Cuba are not being treated in an
inhumane or brutal manner. Are there times when the end does justify the
means? Probably. Perhaps in moments of defense against an unconventional
enemy. Or perhaps the illegal activity engaged in by those making up the
Civil Rights movement in America. Or the unlawful activity of the
anti-apartheid crowd in South Africa. Or perhaps illegally attempting to
organize workers in third world factories. There may even be times when the
ends justify ANY means.

However, I  think it is a bit of a stretch to claim that interrogating Al
Queda members or Taliban 'soldiers' broaches the question of "does the end
justify the means".
Yours,
Issodhos