Loadsasnips..

>>...I feel that they [G bay detainees] MUST be accorded all rights under the Geneva convention regardless if they are categorically declared POWs or not (as a minimum level of acceptable treatment to all POWS and detainees of any status because we would expect the same for our citizens), and I cannot see how they cannot be considered POWs if they are detained due to a war on terrorism.

>I suspect that a good many in the U.S. have a similar viewpoint to your personal one on this issue.

As I put in another thread (then having a fun time with Mr McCandless if memory serves), it is important that they are assigned a status, and then the world can know what rights they should expect. As criminals under US law, this would be erm US law. As POWs, this would be the Geneva convention. Instead, the US authorities have essentially cocked a snook at the world and said that they don't have to say what status they have under international law, thus they can treat them in any way they want. Maybe the detainees are having wonderful treatment, with Moet (and non-alcoholic Moet for the Muslims) every night, but as this is all happening behind closed doors and implemented with such a disregard for law, the US can then scarcely complain when the world accuses them of hypocrisy.

>>...I should add that while I am definitely concerned about the security of the U.S., I also feel that the Homeland Security bill as infringed upon our citizens rights and is putting us almost right back where we were during McCarthyism and even Hoover....

>I don't know when the "war on terrorism" will be "over", but I sure hope that no government chooses to let it be continuous for ever more so that they can continue to enjoy unwarranted controls over their citizens.

Just when you think we've managed to put Orwell back in his box, he jumps out again with a vengeance!