Good article, and I certainly agree you can't treat these people like normal soldiers. During WW2 partisans (i.e non-uniformed combatants living amongst civilian populations) were simply executed. By all sides. And the 'justice' served to those in Guantanamo Bay is certainly not extended to those captured by Islamic extremists the world over.

Having said that, the downside is that the Islamic world gets another example of western 'brutality' towards prisoners. What can the Americans realistically do? Is it even possible for these prisoners to get a fair trial in the US?

Groups like the Taleban and Al-Queda laugh at the debate in the west - they have no such qualms. And that is why they cannot be defeated by sticking to self-imposed rules. Dealing with groups which routinly execute prisoners. Do you think such prisoners would be grateful for the same treatment as normal criminals? Just another excuse for them to laugh at our weakness.

If you are saying the ends justify the means then I think Osama could also put a very good case for the twin towers.

To use the actions of others as an excuse to turn a blind eye to the abuses perpetrated by 'our side' has to devalue our moral capital. Thus it hands groups like Al-Queda a second victory, one that I am prepared to fight hard to prevent.

Cheers

Cameron

I disagree entirely. First, have these prisoners been found guilty of any offence? no!! Second, by agreeing with the treatment then one is taking the law into their own hands....not following the rule of law. The old "eye for an eye " becamee defunct when the Geneva Convention came in. Those who authorise and or execute torture on the prisoners are no better than those who they claim are guilty of the same offence...but yet to be found guilty. To claim that what is being done to these prisoners is not torture is purely ignorance and yes war veterans, many of them, have gone through worse, much worse, but does that make it right? Shouldnt we be learning and then growing from historical mistakes and actions? I am totally against any one who kills or maims innocent victims...."Taliban, Americans or otherwise. We have rules, society cant bend those rules when it suits them.

I disagree with the article, like the two previous commentators. Since 1215 the English people were promised by King John that to none would he deny or delay JUSTICE. In England and countless countries the fight for the rule of law - quick charges, quick trial, reasonable sentences, no torture - has gone on. The English 1689 Bill of Rights, the Geneva Convention, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are signposts on the way to the rule of law, alas often broken by rulers, nearly always with a plausible excuse.

Cruel murderers and callous thieves all have a right to be charged, put before an impartial court, heard, and acquitted or convicted. Plus -- some of those locked up and tormented at Guantanamo Bay, just as those at Abu Ghraib, were put there at random by people seeking the REWARD MONEY. Shame on any human being who agrees to imprisonment without impartial court trial. Wickedness by those who teach that unbelievers should be crucified, enslaved, ets., is NO EXCUSE for decent people to agree to the US and UK breaking their own laws of freedom, and enraging over ONE BILLION Muslims, who have been taught to despise and attack others.

As with the Geneva conventions, there is much conjecture in the world at present at to whether the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is indeed a declaration of rights, or simply a declaration of how we would like the world to be. While Mr Lapkin makes a robust argument for supporting the American actions vis-a-vis Guantanemo Bay, his position is no more 'right' than anyone elses. The question is this - do we wish to live in a world where the strong (i.e. currently the western world, primarily the US) treats everyone equally according to law? Or do we wish to make up the rules according to the political expedience of the day? Neither is inherently right, it is a choice involving your vision for the future. If the industrialised countries of the world do not set a more humane precedent now, where will we be when a less democratic nation takes the mantle of strength from the Americans? The precendent of 'might is right' is great for those with might! History shows that no nation will stay mighty forever. If (as Donald Rumsfeld suggests) these prisoners are not covered by the GC's then we need to write a new law!

Whilst I do not wish to monopolise this debate, I feel it is important to point out that (contrary to Mr Lapkins article) Part 1C of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914, the part under which all Australian Commonwealth criminal interviews are conducted, are undertaken entirely within the requirements of the Geneva Conventions. Those who are familiar with that system would have it no other way. A Commonwealth Law enforcement officer who finds it necessary to break the Geneva Conventions in "routine investigative procedures" is both not doing his/her job properly and losing most of his/her cases in court when the evidence is thrown out for being collected unlawfully.