>>It's absurd that we're imprisoning suspects without giving them the opportunity to demonstrate their innocence
>>
>>So long as it's a military tribunal, and they are not permitted on American soil, that's fine. But once again, not a single act/law/coventant that's been mentioned is applicable here. These individuals are often not part of any nation-state.
>
>We have no business taking people from their homes and expecting other countries to then bear the burden of providing a place for them. If we think the people need to be imprisoned, we'd better be willing to provide the prisons.
>
>FWIW, we did imprison enemy soldiers _in this country_ during WWII. That seemed to work. We're also imprisoning some pretty bad people already. If we don't think we can properly keep these people locked up, then we have a much bigger problem than having enemies.
>

We imprisoned enemy soldiers who were fighting for their countries (geneva convention signers) IN UNIFORM and generally fighting within recognized rules of warfare. We shot spies (those fighting w/o uniform). The enemy countries imprisoned soldiers they captured, and many were treated according to geneva convention guidelines.

Go ahead, tell us Al Queda or the Taliban do that. Make an excuse.

>Tamar